Glorfindel wrote: You seem to think that believing the teachings of Christ must make one a spiteful, murderous, bigot. Pitiable.

Dear Glorfindel,

Christians have gone on Crusades in which they have massacred not only Muslims but also Albigenses, Jews, Orthodox Christians, Lithuanian pagans etc., tortured and burned people at the stake in the Inquisition, enslaved the inhabitants of the Americas and brought slaves from Africa using the excuse that they were bringing them to Christ, murdered each other in the Wars of the Reformation and exhibited many other instances of violence including support for Hitler by Christian antisemitism. The Christian record of violence justified by their religion is appalling.

There are Christian sects such as the Quakers and Amish who are non-violent. Unfortunately they are a decided minority.

“Constantine’s Sword” by James Carroll tells how the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire made Christianity a religion of war.

“The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386” by Richard Fletcher is a tale of great violence. Christians could freely murder to correct the sin of not being Christian.

Whether Christians were spiteful or bigoted is moot, but they certainly were murderous.

In the NT Jesus encourages violence and conflict:

MATTHEW 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

MATTHEW 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

MATTHEW 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

MATTHEW 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

LUKE 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

The bloody Christian record exists, and one source is above..

Dear Davidf:

"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose." - Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice.

Indeed. Try to have a good day. Not interested in any more dialogue of the deaf, dumb, halt and blind.

Sells,
I guess we need to understand the myriad of ways in which both Christians and non-Christians improvise their spiritualities, drawing freely and eclectically upon a range of spiritual traditions, often with relatively little attention to the way in which the established traditions set the terms of belief.

A comfort I take from the New Testament is its feature of koinonia or community (“not of isolation”) - albeit a non-hysterical community that is also widely diverse. The Christian dramatis personae of the New Testament strive for a likeness to the divine image, to Christ “the image of the invisible God” – here, this core struggle for a contemporary Christian remains.

I have little doubt the New Testament worldview was multi-dimensional. The authors of the New Testament lived in a dual world, a world of matter and of spirit, a world of created things and their creator. For them, the spiritual world, though unseen, was ‘real,’ and it exerted power and influence on the seen, material world. The secular, often seen as a pejorative, gives rightful distinction between the sacred and the temporal.

Jacob Neusner said we ought properly to speak of the Judaisms (plural) of the period. There was no monolithic Judaism - no one way to be a Jew in Roman Palestine. Likewise, there is no single New Testament spirituality, but many and varied New Testament spiritualities. The New Testament is bound by the religious and spiritual choices, practices, and language of its age. The world-view and concerns of its characters may not be ours. Nevertheless, students of New Testament are still exegetes (those who draw out the meaning that is in the text) and not eisegetes (those who read into the text what might or might not be there) - and (as you’d probably agree) we must allow them to speak for themselves and in their own voice.

The complex nature of how things evolve means a shift from a collective belonging as within medieval Christianity, to an individual autonomy, far less dependent on institutional approval - often resentful of ecclesiastical interference or anything resembling censorship.

Glorfindel wrote:

Dear Davidf:

"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose." - Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice.

Indeed. Try to have a good day. Not interested in any more dialogue of the deaf, dumb, halt and blind.

Dear Glorfindel,

When one has no answer it might be better to remain silent than to call someone else names.

RELDA: Thanks for your interesting post. The "shift from a collective belonging as within medieval Christianity, to an individual autonomy, far less dependent on institutional approval" is a challenge for the institutional church today, especially the most hierarchical denominations.

Like the fragmentation of Protestantism, followed by the appearance of more and more distant sects, it can lead to theological anarchy. St Mary's Catholic Church in South Brisbane has been taken over by political correctness and feminist and liberation theology, leading to the dismissal of its priest, Father Kennedy. Another example is Spong and his theology. Both, in essence, have made God in their image rather than vice-versa.

I was interested at your contrasting of exegetes (those who draw out the meaning that is in the text) and eisegetes (those who read into the text what might or might not be there).

Reason (component 3 in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) requires us, I think, to study and exegete the text. Going beyond this is more dangerous. We need to ask for guidance by the Spirit of Truth, as promised by Jesus (John 14:16).

DAVIDF: It's not that I have no answer to you. It's that I won't engage when you debate dishonestly. Jesus predicted that believers of his message would encounter hostility from others. So it is today - am I monstering you, or are you seeking to monster my belief? Jesus' prediction that Christians would encounter violence (as they did in nearly 300 years of persecution) is certainly not the same as his encouraging his followers to use violence and conflict. You know this but prefer to twist, distort and give gratuitous offence.

"Jesus predicted that believers of his message would encounter hostility from others".

Glorfindel, ANYONE with something contentious to say can make that prediction, and they'll always be correct.