QuakerInfo.com Forum

[james]

[Anthony]

[Frank]

Bishop Spong to the contrary, Christian renewal in the United States at least does seem to be coming from the fundamentalist front, growing rapidly and at least in the United States with considerable political power. I'm not necessarily comfortable with that, but there it is. And it's useful to remember that the most rapidly growing body of Friends worldwide is evangelical.

"Irrelevant" mainline traditions appear to be stirring (remember the UCC advertising campaign about inclusiveness that seems to have had positive results?) I suspect, prodded by fundamentalism, they are waking up, certainly no longer taking their historical but eroding dominance for granted.

The principal enemies to all flavors of Christianity, from the most conservative to the extreme liberal, remain indifference and institutionalized secularism.

I have faith in the durability of Christians, Christianity and "magical" thinking.

In the long run it is Spong, as thought-provoking as he is, who probably will be proved irrelevant.

[james]

[Frank]

Because it is so illogical, it's called faith.

[Anthony]

I think we should be cautious about what we deny because, to us, it does not appear to make sense, or because it is not demonstrable on demand, or because it has not been one's own experience. How easy it is to fall into one's own trap: to deny the experience and understanding of another and yet expect one's own view and opinion to be valid.

I don't think I have ever claimed that the religious experiences and beliefs of others on this forum are wrong or mistaken (certainly not recently, if at all) but, I have asked for clarification on certain issues, and I have expressed my own discernment and understanding, and at times I have challenged attitudes.

I don't consider anyone's faith to be wrong or mistaken - this is not something I would claim or believe. There are things I don't understand or find inexplicable and even irrational but I would not deny them - there is a realm of all possibilities.

I concur with Hebrews 11:3 'Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word [Law] of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (The Pilgrim Study Bible)

and:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (From Hamlet )

[ScottK]

James stated earlier this:
"...The essential innovation, the critical brilliance, of early Quakerism (and of Jesus) was to say that the genuine and original Truth is not in the Book, but in your heart. There is no other place to look. Pinning one's spiritual life to theological propositions is not faith, but faithlessness."

Yes, Jesus did preach the spirit over the law, and that rings true, but...it's not just inside you without the Teacher Himself inside you. And,
Actually, I understand that the original message Goerge Fox preached with passion was that "Christ has come to teach His people Himself"...this after it was opened to him that "there is one, even Christ Jesus, that can (could) speak to thy condition" (and therefore our condition now as Quakers as well!). That is/was/should be/can be/must be the Quaker message. Other messages have some part of the Way and Truth, and I love to read them, discuss them, ponder them, learn from them and respect them, but they are NOT the source. What else do you/we need to know, and why do some Friends keep seeking answers outside of the Source?
Just my honest thoughts. Friend Bill and Friend Frank speak my mind on this matter.
Scott in Atlanta

[sally O]

I love John Spong - lets be Quakerly and do away with the honorifics!

I've read a lot of his books and he is a big favourite with Tasmanian Quakers. Doesn't he also say that the importance of Jesus was his inclusiveness. Instead of a favoured people being the ones who God would look out for, he included everyone, even women and others who were seen as un-cool at the time. THis was where he made a revolution in thinking about God.

When you say that Christians have to believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection, you lose me. Then I have to say I am not a Christian. I cannot believe in this stuff. Spong lets me in, however, because he writes about it, and explains the words of the Bible in a way that I can understand.

It is my understanding that I can call myself a Quaker, and I've just come from my meeting where I am deeply loved and accepted. My God is not the man on the cloud, directing proceedings on earth. S/he is in my heart, and if I pay attention, I can be directed in my daily life.

[Taogypsy]

I see this path as most straight forward. It is a matter of perception and concept.

The things of the bible were witnessed and recorded by people of that time. It has always been the flaw in more modern teaching of the stories, first trying to get people to disclaim what they know from this time, that we should still take these historical things as literal, applying to today. Were they to happen today, we may witness and record them very differently.

So we should look at the history and realise that it was very important at the time, that the miracles were that at the time, and there was a certain mystique associated with these things. The real magic was how many people it pulled to the cause, gave people hope, and something to believe in.

But by looking at it in this modern world still the same, is driving people away. The world continues to turn. God is still relevant, called by any name, and the magic that is happening every day are still miracles that we think we can explain, but never take for granted. The miracles of the bible have always been about people things, and still do rather reside there, than the real magic. For all the marvels that can be created by humans, no one can from scratch make an egg, that will with the right amount of time, heat and humidity produce a chicken. No one can probably make a shell even, one that breathes and sanitises air taken into it. We cannot yet, no matter how much physical real estate and technology we employ, create a working liver.

So let's admit that miracles still happen, that there is genuine healing by people just touching others. If this is because the sick so healed were going to heal anyway, is not for us to know, though we could argue either way. For the person healed and their family it is a miracle. Who would gainsay that?

So we look with new eyes at the concepts, they are still happening, and what is it of God that is greater in some than in ourselves? Each of us has a talent, a gift, no matter how small. Why? No one knows except maybe the one that can make something so beautiful, that can produce an egg.

So we are hardly arguing semantics, we are arguing views, how we look at the virgin birth, the resurrection and all these things now. When we would have looked at them differently at the time when they happened.

To keep people interested today, we can teach the history, as the great wonder that it was at the time. I believe in a social consciousness, I also believe that it was another thing to the people of Christs time. I believe that the virgin birth could happen, but even if not, that a young woman found a brilliant way to move herself out of peril at a time when something like a virgin birth was required. It may not sound like a miracle to us now, but it would have been to the young woman and those that needed a miracle rather desperately at the time. Do I think this was chance, or the work of God that she would be a player in this? I beleive in the God [the social consciousness] That the resurrection was required then, had to happen in fact, otherwise it would not have allowed people to continue believing.

I believe in all these things if I place myself at the time, and I don't argue against them now, because it can't be done. Is in fact wasteful of time and effort. In another time it was acceptable to have children work in coal mines. It was acceptable then, but now? The things of the bible happened then. Look at any history and know that something has happened. But did it as was said/written that it did, and the hero of course doesn't deny it, because it adds to the folklore, makes him/her look better......... Then put yourself in time of that event.

We cannot move these incidents out of what was happening at the time? We have to keep it in context. No more than we can keep teaching the things of that time to people of now as anything other than the history of people and God.

Now, we can still point to a great deal of help from God through prayer, silent worship, which could also be called meditation or vice versa, but is a connection with the source. This is God, if depiction of a person as God is required, that is Jesus. Jesus walked upon the earth in human form, but we are all of God, the spirit. We are made in the spirit. That is the image of God, and that anyone would think differently, would not be wrong, just viewing from an earlier time. The time of Jesus. Because the words used would have been of that time, the meaning hinted at would have been of that era.

But we can all see that God is here, all round us, that miracles are happening even as we read, if anyone thinks it worthy, or write this.

Just my thoughts,
Be well,
Charlie
_________________
If you think you understand a thing,
Your mind has ceased to function,
To make it work again, try to see it from the side of misunderstanding.
-- anon

[james]

I like what you say, Charlie. It is still important to me to make distinctions between the literally true and the not literally true, between the miraculous and the merely astonishiig. But at some level I suppose those are only my preferences, and not necessarily THE way to practice religion.

[CelticNorth]

We have to acknowledge that Biblical texts were written in a specific historical period, and were based on composites of earlier ancient texts of the middle east. We all know by now that nearly all of Genesis is based upon the earlier Summerian flood story of the Epic of Gilgamish, with addition origin myths from Egypt. The life story of Christ is the near equal composite of Attica, Horus and Mythra, and the denial of these origins is a blasphemy of the intellect and reason. Liberal theologians quite rightly question the "medium" of the message, while giving credance to the universal and time held truths that lie within. That we are capable of reaching God without the mystical prerequisities of fable stories is testament to a newer acceptance of this thought, a thought and context which was not within reach of ancient scribes.

[ScottK]

Does the fact that earlier people's writings also echo Hebrews' ancient stories and oral legends later written down mean that the actual events did not happen, or does it tend to lead one to think that there is some truth in the"myths" or legends? I think that you don't throw out scriptures because they echo other writings, but you use cultural and historical context to understand and interpret, and that the other writings only serve to validate the events ocurring in some type of form. Just a thought.

[ScottK]

Also, no one I know of (of any major faith or historical expertise) denies the historical fact of Jesus of Nazareth's existence. He was put to death for something, evidently. Texts and stories tell us he claimed the ludricous...he "blasphemed", saying he and the Father were one. Evidently that sealed his fate. Politics involved as well (like today)...but he was either mad, or.....? You have to decide if what he claimed that got him killed and accused of blasphemy had any validity or not or is of the Light.

[Taogypsy]

I see Jesus very clearly and simply, as one that created a stronger line of religious thinking, a connection, a conduit to the source, a softening of what people had previously thought about God. To me it matters little if Jesus was actually the son of God, or just thought himself to be so, and acted accordingly. Which to me, if all the stories are true, is near enough. He existed because he was needed at the time. Again the first question being:- is he created by God, or just the right person at the right time? Either way the next questions are, why not both, are both not the same? There were lessons to be learned, and I have little doubt that the chroniclers of the time would have put a positive spin on anything Jesus did.

The political aspect of the time, as Scott suggested in his post, would have played a major part, as would other contributing factors, such as the mood of the populace, the amount of food available etc.. Though I am not certain if Rome was liked or not at that time, there would have been dissenters, and there would have been those that Rome had injured, physically and financially. They would have been looking for something that could harass/destabilise or even defeat this formidable force. A suggestion, an idea, was certainly cheaper, more easily attainable and possibly better than an army in the first instance. These “rebels” would have cared less about the content of the words Jesus spoke, than the way he inspired those who were ready for this insight, and how people followed him. He was the hope of the people, their messiah; they had faith. Those against Rome would have helped to spread the word.

Faith, who can deny it, who could prove it? Even today faith is something that works, exists, and is never tarnished. Because it remains unprovable, and doesn't favour any, is there for everyone to use, if they would grab at it. It has the greatest possible power. Because if you don't have it, expect nothing. If you have it, expect nothing, but there it is just the same, and if something unexpected happens, those that have it know it to be faith. While those who don't have faith are running about trying to disprove its existence without a moments success.

From this history we learn that an idea is stronger than any army, and has been used often enough since. Not always wisely or for the good of people, and with time it has become lost, mutated, or just deviated from the path that people wanted to travel. So Jesus lived and made miracles, by having people gather round God rather than Rome. The same applies today I think.

Be well,
Charlie
_________________
If you think you understand a thing,
Your mind has ceased to function,
To make it work again, try to see it from the side of misunderstanding.
-- anon

[CelticNorth]

The origin stories of a "savior" King being the "incarnation" of God is the primal link to the historical Jesus, something that previously was the sacred domain of Kings. The historical act of rewriting the myth to encompass everyone as being worthy of resurection, once the reserved right of Kings, is the point where I think the Christ story enters history in its profound way. Now we can all know God, not through the act of the death of a King and the "resurection" of his god-rule through the offspring of a male child, but through a acknowedgement of Christ as the Savior. The entire "savior" cult myth never seems to die, which in the Judeo-Christian tradtion always entails a original sin motive. Unweaving these motives as Christ justification is a great start for a new Reformation, since these myths are not universal worldwide, and are therefore meaningless as a force for a unified humanity. If we are all truely worthy of knowing God, the litmus test cannot be a sole adherance to Hebrew and Christian texts. We cannot be literalist.