It is a question this atheist occasionally asks himself.

I thought at a bare minimum a Christian had at least to try to believe that Jesus was the son of God who died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day.

On the other hand Islam teaches that "Isa" did not die on the cross. 4:157 of the koran reads:

"And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure."

There are other points of difference. Islam teaches that "Isa" was a prophet but denies he was the son of God or God incarnate.

Since Muslims supposedly believe their holy book to be literally true it would seem that Islam and Christianity are incompatible. The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopalian priest, begs to differ. She purports to be a Muslim and an Episcopalian Christian simultaneously.

Redding's bishop, Vincent Warner, finds the "interfaith possibilities" of Redding's dual adherences "exciting." He says she continues to be an Episcopalian priest.

Is Redding still a Christian?

Is she truly a Muslim?

See:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html

No & No

Supplementary question:

How do I apply for the job of first openly atheist Archbishop of Canterbury? I quite fancy a ten year stretch at Lambeth Palace.

steven, you have hit on the key feature of this thread: there's a good living to be made in dressing up in archaic clothing and relaying the word of god.

this discovery has been made before, but there's always room for a young pusher with a new angle. this lady with the new 'multi' connection to god is admirable. talk about market placement and versatility!

little wonder she is seen as a comer by the nearly extinct episcopals, who are getting ready to morph into islam at the top of american society, just as elijah muhammed and malcomn x led the african american/bottom of american society to islam.

Hi Steven,

Interesting topic as usual.
As you rightly highlighted, the difference between Islam and Christianity is on the character of Jesus (not his teachings): prophet or God.

Similar to Judaism, in Islam there is only one God, with no images, resemblance or relatives (physical or metaphoric). Muslims beliefs are similar to christians in the 3rd and 4th century (ie before the theology of the Trinity appeared).

The definition of Christianity as accepting Jesus death, resurrection, sacrifice, etc..is alien to Islamic and Judaism theologies. Its unique to Christian theology. The challenge with the Trinity is it came after the Bible was written and hence can't really be substantiated in the bible.

How do you treat unitarian christians for example?

Peace,

Steven.. excellent topic, and I'm glad an 'atheist' brought it up. (I'll send the cheque in the mail :)

It is absolutely impossible (to put it mildly) to be Christian and Muslim at the same time.

But your question needing first to be addressed is 'What is a Christian'.

This word first cropped up at Antioch as per Acts 11:26

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Looking at the context, we need to examine the framework into which the young Church grew, and on what 'basis' it grew. For this we can look in many place, beginning with the Lord words in Mark

1:4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

1:14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, but by me"
-"I am the bread of life"
-"Before Abraham was, I am"
-"I and the Father are one"
-"I am the light of the world"
-"I am the living water"
-"I am the good shepherd"
-"I am the door"
-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word...was God" (John 1:1)

John 20.31 But these things are written, that you may.....
-Believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and....
-That in believing, you may have life in His name"

So, Steve.. the picture emerges that a 'Christian' is one who has repented of sin,placed his faith in Christ, embraced Him as Saviour, Lord, King, Guide, Shepherd, Friend... and in so doing, is forgiven their sins and has life eternal.

To be Muslim, there are 2 major requirements in terms of belief.

1/ Believe in the ONE-ness of God
2/ Believe Mohammad is His final messenger.

Christians have no problem with the idea of the ONE-ness of God, as clearly revealed in the Old Testament. We also do not argue with God, when he says at the Baptism of Jesus "Behold my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased"

Nor do we argue with God at the Transfiguration when He uses the same words, but adds "Listen to Him"..... It is noteworthy that from that moment, Jesus BEGAN to teach them about His impending death and resurrection.

Christians are faced with a huge problem with seeking to understand the nature of God. We know the Old Testament, and we also know that God revealed HimSELF in Christ, and proclaimed Jesus as 'My Son'.
"Show us the Father then we will be satisfied" asked Thomas. "Have I been with you so long and yet you do not know ME" replied Jesus.

It is unthinkable, that given the fulfillment of the New Covenant of Grace in Christ, (Jeremiah 31:31) that anyone could come along afterwards and claim any kind of divine authority.

This applies to anyone making such claims.
-Mohammad bin Abdullah (Founder of Islam)
-Gautama Buddha (preceeded Jesus historically)
-Hindu Gods
-Confucious
-Jim Jones (Jonestown coolaid)
-Divine Light Mission (Eastern mysticism)
-Mormons
-Jehovah's witnesses
-Scientologists
-Any Pope.

We can live under pagan emperor, (and watch the grace of God reach into the emperors own family) or we can live under a Christian king.
But we can never agree or accept that there is any Saviour, other than Christ, for all time.

Jesus said "If I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself" (John 12.32)
The question is... will they come?
He stands knocking at the door of our hearts, we only need open it by faith and repentance.
He won't break down the door.

The oneness of God is not understood by many persons calling themselves Christian so promote a Roman spatial view of Trinity. Why? Because they view God as literal persons so according to them there are three persons. Persons have space and individual identity. However God has one identity - God - the eternal purity of character and is spirit. He is not A spirit among many spirits. He is manifest in humanity by his character, actions, creation, wisdom, grace etc. None of these have physical image by itself; but all are manifest in the humanity of Jesus. The spirit of God wants to be manifest in every human life. We were made to bear his image and likness. We ought to recognise the revelation of God primarily in human character, actions, creativity, motivations, and wisdom

What I find intriguing is the response of the Episcopalian Church of the USA (ECUSA). I would have thought that a priest who embraces a religion that explicitly denies core Christian beliefs can no longer continue in his or her ministry. The core beliefs to which I refer are:

--Jesus is (present tense) the son of God

--Jesus is God incarnate.

--Jesus died on the cross for our sins

--Jesus rose from the dead on the third day.

All four are explicitly denied by Islam.

Given ECUSA's response to Redding's embrace of Islam I can only infer that at least one of the following is true:

--ECUSA does not regard the above as core beliefs.

--The ECUSA leadership does not care whether their priests accept their core beliefs.

If the first I have to ask what is the ECUSA definition of what it means to be a Christian.

In ECUSA terms could a Christian engage in Jihad? Could the Rev Redding kill an apostate as mandated by Sharia law? Could she go after Salman Rushdie for example?

I have asked the Anglican Diocese here in Melbourne, Australia, to comment. If and when I get a reply I shall post it here.

Definition of a Christian?

One who attempts to follow the teachings of Christ and who believes that Christ is God.

Simple as that.

>>One who attempts to follow the teachings of Christ and who believes that Christ is God.>>

You understand Is Mise that Muslims specifically reject the divinity of Jesus?

Redding herself appears to be, as one Episcopalian put it, a few slices short of a full loaf. But the reactions of her Bishop, and the ECUSA leadership, generally is astonishing.

Here is a link to a page on the ECUSA (Ecumenical Church of the USA) website that purports to spell out the official ECUSA position on the essentials of Christianity.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/visitors_16966_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=43796

Redding has embraced a faith that rejects almost all the tenets ECUSA says it regards as essential and that espouses what ECUSA says are heresies. Yet she continues to be an Episcopalian priest in good standing.

Even by the standards of Christian churches this is loopy.

Steven,

You said
"Jesus is (present tense) the son of God
Jesus is God incarnate.
Jesus died on the cross for our sins
Jesus rose from the dead on the third day
All four are explicitly denied by Islam"

That's not exactly correct:
Point 1 and 2 are correct.
Point 3: Islamic scripture have a position (he may have been on the cross, google few articles by Ahmed Deedat).
Point 4, we have no position on it whether he was resurrected or not.
Resurrection according to Islam happened to many prophets (including Ozeir) and for us have no theological meaning or implication.

Peace,

Folk, (and how I miss Kim Beazley),I can attest to having seen 9(nine) angels on the head of a pin; but I cannot attest as to whether or not there was room for any more.
Verbatim quotation of texts of dubious origin, stated through a prism of literal understanding fuel an argument; but camouflage a failure not of intellect, but of observation.
Don't relegate our religious and spiritual side to just Another Roadside Attraction.
This discussion condemns us to 'days of future past'.
Hypothetically, if Boaz, Fellow Human and Stevenlmeyer were to embrace the implications of a, let's say Buddhist viewpoint, of reincarnation, then each might a) stop bickering ,and b)begin to really empathise with that other guy over there.
If the good Episc. can embrace both sides of this intellectually poverty stricken argument, then good luck to her.

Palim... I was not aware that myself FH and Steven were 'bickering'..well not yet anyway :)

Steven is presenting very important information about some socio/religious realities occurring in the world, and we are all exploring this. I've not seen any verbal scuds zooming across the literary horizon just yet.

Is Mise. While I basically agree with your very simple definition, I think it needs a framework. You mention 'try to follow' the teachings of Christ.

I suggest that our Lords teachings are virtually impossible to follow all the time. Well..not impossible, but improbable, why ? for the same reason that

35Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, while travelling with Jesus, asked to sit at his right&left hand in his GLORY.(too heavenly minded to be of earthly use)
In other words... the old 'flesh' raises its ugly head, and we are prone to following it. I realize you said "Try" to follow.... but in your statement there is the admission (and my confession) that we don't succeed.

So, if we cannot attain moral perfection in line with our Lords words and example.. how can we expect to stand flawless in the presense of a Holy God in who's presense sin cannot dwell?

Aah.. THAT is the most important question in the universe. It also leads to why Paul said in 1 Cor 15 "I passed on as of first importance that which I also received...that Christ died for our sins" and so on.

Salvation is a free gift of God for those who have faith... in Christ.

Being born again, is being born into Christ. That...is the absolute key.
Jesus said "Without me, you can do nothing" and he is right. (in the salvation sense)

Repent....and Believe (In Christ, as Saviour and Lord). Inseparable elements of the glorious Gospel.

For FH. benefit, everything Jesus said, and did, is meaningless without His resurrection. As Paul underlines "If Christ is not raised, we are:
a)Still in our sins
b)Of all men, most to be pitied.(because we believe in a blatant untruth)

1Cor15

Palimpsest, Buddhism is not supernatural and its effects can be scientifically analysed and explained; reincarnation is a scientific certainty if the universe is infinite but the supernatural including religions Christianity and Islam are quite the opposite of Buddhism and science.

BOAZ. I guess I did malign Steven. My apologies.I see this ongoing discussion as being unhelpful- same old same old, the study of the entrails of the corpses on innumerable battlefields.
I like alot of what Elaine Pagels has written re the political imperatives at work with the selection of gospels that became the Bible.
Writings of the time that emphasised a personal spiritual dimension that did not rely on capital A authority and a subservience to an accepted concept of god were suppressed. Pagels documents people of the time ridiculing those who insisted on a physical resurrection. They believed in a spiritual and eternal life and laughed at the literal interpretation of Jesus' resurrection.
Boaz guys like you and Fellow Human often argue very intelligently your cases, but only from your fixed paradigms. You condemn us all to more of the same. There are other ideas out there on the subject of religion that are worthy of consideration

Hmm...might be mistaken here but I imagine that Christ would say that anyone who followed the basic principle of "love one another" was a Christian.

Those that recognise that the very character and attitudes of Jesus exactly express the very nature and character of God are followers of Christ. They recognise he [Jesus] was in his spirit born of God to use a paternal term - thus he was the Son of God. God is the father of spirit. Jesus human birth was very natural and it never classified him - God. We recognise him as God clothed in humanity because the very character of God was expressed in and through him. Those that express the very character and attitudes of God are sons of God. They are not worshiped in any way because of their humanity, but the purity of spirit who is born of God [for God only is worshipped]. To be a son of God means to be born of the spirit of God. That is - God is "Our Father", father of our spirit. Certainly not in any natural sense but in a spiritual sense.

By failing to grasp the concept of a spiritual birth by the spirit of God one will naturally deny the divine nature of Christ. That the spirit at indwelt Christ was exactly God. To fail to grasp one's rebirth out of the self centred life to follow the teachings of Christ as Lord fails what it means to be Christian.

A Christian truly recognises the life and teachings of Christ as of God and we respond to live by them that identifies one as a Christian and reject our self centred immature id drives.

I believe that the odds are that there was a man called Jesus and that he was basically a good man. From what has been written about him by those who penned the gospels he advocated a lot of virtues that seem to sum up the best of humankind's attempts at an individual and social morality. I think the odds are also on a lot of post-Jesus theologising about his nature and his being Christ the Son of God!

I don't go in at all for the theologising and metaphysics, but I would like to be a bit more like Jesus than I am. He seems a good kind of role model.

Does this make me a Christian? My guess is that many many church members are christians of this type

"Those that recognise that the very character and attitudes of Jesus exactly express the very nature and character of God are followers of Christ." - Philo.

I have asked BOAZ, about the special chararcter of Jesus along the lines of the above, by referring to Jesus' humanity only and BOAZ wont answer me. What makes Jesus' humanity exceptional beyond, special, highly self-actualised individuals, of whom, history has provided many examples?

Thread,

I think a Christian might provide a definition along the lines of, "one who is righteously justified to God by the substitutionary ransom of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of human sin". Well, words to that effect.

In history's shadow, perhaps, one needs to consider Christianity's changing sands, the early Jesus house cult groups, Hellenised Christians under Pauline creed bridging Jews to Gentiles, the instituationalised Christian Church after Nicaea, the interpretations of Augustine, The Great Schicism and the Reformation. All these events created different kinds of Christians.
Herein, there have been dozens of transformations and configurations. Christianity has morphed several times and probably lost contact with its mission, after a few generations: Recalling too; the first Christians were not Christians, but Jews.

If memory serves, the expansion of Christianity West followed Jewish settlements [escaping Rome and population centres, where they were persecuted] and West Greek speaking Roman legions. Moreover,the period after the Jewish exile to Pella had a profound affect who was a Christian. One could not be a Jew and enter The Holy Lands.

Unlike the pagans [civil counrymen], early Christians, used codexes, not scrolls. [Checked backwards and forwards] They were very textual and scriptural. While Christianity inherited aspects of the mythological Roman Mystery cults, holy books seem to be at the cult's centre, rather than a secret. Again these Christians were quite Jewish.

What was a Christian changed around the time of the death of Edward [VI?]. Mary's Murder of Queen [Lady] Jane [Grey] was reliously very significant, and immediately latter, of course, Elizabeth I enthronement. Philip of Spain would have different [Catholic] views to Ellizabeth I, and a different relationship with the Pope.

Boaz,
'try to follow' is perhaps a bit less precise than 'follow' but I contend that 99.9% of humans could only try, our fallibility is to much a part of our natures to allow us to attain perfection.
We were designed to sin a little, else we'd all be hermaphroditic.

Ah..the ever burning question.
Those who aspire to become christians inevitably become christians, we have honest christians and dishonest ones, it all boils down to having a belief in something or someone to give us the individuals, time-out of our otherwise pretentious or boring lives, to give us a reason to carry on wheeling and dealing and yet for others to relate to, hide behind and of course, look down on others that are not christians. There is no way a christian can live up to the original beliefs in this day and age, not with its technology, not with its pressures, vulnerability and ever-increasing crime. In those days gone by, they could live up to the expectations of the big-guy, alas, this was not meant to be, this is why we have jerks preaching to us over the internet about something they themselves no nothing about.
If this story sounds a tad confusing, welcome to the real world and shake hands with what we all feel as humans to be doing the right thing, just plainly fighting to stay alive in an unjust society that aparently was supposed to do things by the book. Amen.

Boazy: "35Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, while travelling with Jesus, asked to sit at his right&left hand in his GLORY.(too heavenly minded to be of earthly use)
In other words... the old 'flesh' raises its ugly head, and we are prone to following it. I realize you said "Try" to follow.... but in your statement there is the admission (and my confession) that we don't succeed.

So, if we cannot attain moral perfection in line with our Lords words and example.. how can we expect to stand flawless in the presense of a Holy God in who's presense sin cannot dwell?

Aah.. THAT is the most important question in the universe. It also leads to why Paul said in 1 Cor 15 "I passed on as of first importance that which I also received...that Christ died for our sins" and so on.

Salvation is a free gift of God for those who have faith... in Christ.

Being born again, is being born into Christ. That...is the absolute key.
Jesus said "Without me, you can do nothing" and he is right. (in the salvation sense)

Repent....and Believe (In Christ, as Saviour and Lord). Inseparable elements of the glorious Gospel."

Sometimes one can only marvel at the sheer, wondrous lunacy of Boazy in full flight. Who knows what such incantations actually mean - but I suspect that's a secondary consideration to the missionary mind.

So we're all supposed to "repent" (because) "we cannot attain moral perfection in line with our Lords words and example"?

And you wonder why most of us aren't practising Christians? Get a life.

And I say amen to that, Rev Morgan! The only thing is, there are way too many explanations and written in so many different ways, translated from a dead language and transcribed by someone who could hardly speak english back in the good ol' days. It strikes me funny that some issues appear in the good book, that have only recently happened or someone will pick up on a portion in the bible that only looks similar to a recent occurance and then shout "hallelujah" the lord has spoken!...er whaaa?
If we had to directly translate word for word what was actually written in the scrolls, we would have all gone to hell by now.

What Is A Christian.

A Person who quitely goes about their way doing good for others for no self gain.

Most REAL Christians you never here about.

I guess that cuts us lot out ah!
He He He.
Sorry Boaz- Couldnt resist

What or who is a Christian? Anyone who assumes the appellation. The word ‘Christian’ no longer has any meaning whatever. It’s merely an ‘umbrella’ term that forces 'moderates' to give tacit support to fundamentalist murderers as long as they call themselves christians. Decent people would be ashamed to call themselves Christians.
To achieve credibility, worshippers of supernatural supermen should create new, descriptive terms for their associations. Instead of calling themselves christians, Catholics could rename themselves “The 8 billion dollar, tax-dodging, profiteering, child indoctrination society”. Or Brethren could become the “We hate everyone who enjoys themselves and isn’t exactly like us” society.

I have sent the following to the Idris Mosque in Seattle which, I think, is the Mosque Rev. Redding attends.

Dear Sir,

I refer to the following item in the Seattle Times:

"I am both Muslim and Christian," June 17, 2007.

See:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html

Just one question.

What would Rev. Redding's Imam have to say to Bishop Robinson?

Yours sincerely,

Steven Meyer,

You can contact the Idris Mosque here.

http://idrismosque.com/contact/contactus.html

Hey C.J.,

In ancient times resinning after Baptism was an issue. Many waited until their deathbed. Original sin on otherwise blameless infants is also problematic for Christian theology. Paul, Nicaea, Eusebius, Augustine, the Council of Trent, probably had more to do Christian creed than Jesus. Also, their was the Jewish Diaspora created by Roman persecutions, afterwhom the Christians followed. The Gentile thing was more complicated foreskins. Practising Jews were expelled from the Holy Lands and could not follow their dutiful observations. Some Pella had feign not being Christians to return to prey.

Holywood is wrong. Early Christians were not male slaves under the yoke, rather, primarily underclass free women [could have been marries]. They didn't live a ancient version of a nuclear household like the Flintstones. People in their situation in the cities would have rented an eighth of room to live. Most of Rome was not the magnificant buildings, rather hovels.

Sells [different thread] and Boaz would deny these matters. But it history

And this all tells me that we are all living in a society of inequity, typical of a form of anti-social behaviour, between christians and non-christians... and this is 2007. Will somebody please shoot me or awake me from this nightmare. ye will all be smited from above and strucketh by lightening, the earth will openeth upeth and swalloweth alleth you heathenth.

Dear Oliver,
I noticed the question this time, and am actually able to decipher it :)

The TWO things which set Jesus apart from all other persons is:

a) His sinless life.
b) His signs and wonders.

A lot of what Jesus taught, is contained in the Old Testament, or, is based on it. You may wish to research the issue of "If your enemy is hungry, feed him" from verse 8 on is good.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&chapter=6&version=31

The above 2 points are due to and based on the reality of "Behold, my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"

CJ, thanx for the feedback re my poor communication, perhaps I used too much Christian Jargon, I'll try to do better.

You raise a good point. Why 'repent' if we can never attain perfection.?
This issue was put another way by some contemporaries of Paul "Why not sin more so that more grace may come" ?

The key issue in repentance and faith is the 'transaction' of being born anew in our hearts. While our lives seldom go from black to white, they would normally make a substantial leap in the white direction. The other point is that when we are 'in Christ' spiritually, and are prompted by His Spirit in our daily lives, our moral and spiritual centre of gravity alters.
The process of sanctification has begun.
James and John would have finally 'got it' I think, but we don't hear a lot about them after Pentecost, so I'd just be speculating.

PALE ..duely noted and smiled at :)

Steven, your doing a great job of exploring these things. Keep it up please.

To all, I refer you to John 20:31 "These things are written.....
Please look it up individually.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&version=31

You may also wish to backtrack to chapter 1 to see what the 'these things' actually are :)
blessings.

BOAZ,

Thank you.

1. In what ways can his sinless life be known and articulated? Wasn't he known to throw the occasional temper fit? If he was born without original sin, he would not have been a man. If he did not have human father, he would not have been a man and not from the House of David (Joseph's house?). Being sinless, why was he Baptised?
He seems to have been not without the sin of Pride?

Did Jesus always honour his Mother? Never being rude to her?

2. Signs and wonders. Uri Geller was known for these :). First century Messiahs [plural] were known for saying they fulfilled OT prophetic agenda [could even go back to Greek occupation]. Morever, some claimed miracles, as with mystical surgery is today.

3. Why was he a unique rather than an merely outstanding as a human?

I will follow the URL and have a read.

Cheers,

O.

See what I mean?

Dear Oliver
thank you again for an opportunity to prove Spanky right :) (that I'm stubborn).....

Ok...joking aside.

You highlight some important and quite profound issues.

1/ Jesus and 'tempter tantrum'. Presumably you are referring to his righteous indignation at the money changers and the chasing them out of the temple with a whip?

The amazing truth is that that is the only incident recording such an act. Secondly, if the Church saw a problem with it, I'm sure they would have 'censored' it? (after all..the Church redacted the scriptures to make the more palatable right ? :) well, many do say that.
Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament.
In the incident mentioned above, look 'closely' at his actual words
"It is written"......My house will be called a house of prayer (for all the peoples Isaiah 56.7) Then his rebuke BUT YOU have made it a den of robbers.
He could have chased them out every time he went there... but didn't. He could have struck dumb Herod and Pilate...but didn't He did what he did to fulfill scripture.. (Refer Luke 24:44-48 "thus, all that is written in the Law of Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets.....)

2/ Uri Geller ? Signs? "You can't keep a good man down"-Christ Rose from the dead.

3/ Refer answer to "2"

Please consider the conversion of Saul, read his own testimony.. (yes.. his own words)

(see the link below) But BEFORE you read it, you should first gain an insight into the reality of the former Paul, see this video, and you will realize just how he was as a persecutor of the Church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gLUd-5xqWY (Africa)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJRcKcjJM9w (Indonesia)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP4CvfnbQaw (Indonesia)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI0iXyYLer4&mode=related&search= (egypt)

Once you have absorbed these images and events. Stop...reflect for a while. Put yourself in their place.. ask 'How would I feel if a Paul was leading such groups against me and my family because of my faith"

THEN....see this passage. (read from verse 11)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&version=31

The glorious words in that passage.. "BUT...when God..." (v15)

Blessings.

BOAZ,

Thanks for the reply. Regarding your earlier reply, I did follow the link, but it seemed refer to some other scripture. I will have a poke around over the weekend. Very busy now.

My challenge was to address the [perfect] life of a human, Jesus' supposed [perfect] human life. Human's don't raise people from the dead. Besides, James Randi debunks people doing this sort of thing all the time.

I thought Jesus had killed a piece of fruit on a vine in spite. And doomed the tree never to grow fruit? Maybe, just Hollywood? A human poisoning [or ring barking]a tree in some instances would result in the evil-doer being charged with a crime today.

The Sermon on the Mount is powerful, wonderful, but so have been many other human speeches. Besides, versions of "do unto others"are know to ancient Jewish preachers, and, in China, predated Jesus by centuries.

Cheers,

O.

Steve,

Interesting article. I will try, as another atheist, to have a go.

I doubt that this Priest, Redding, could be called a Christian. Not that I care about it since Christians can’t even agree on what ‘being a Christian’ means, but the woman is simply having a fling with Islam and trying to rationalise it.

She can defend her theologically promiscuous relationships by saying that ‘we are all sons of God’, but that’s just not what true Christians believe Jesus is.
Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, while Muslims deny that God had a son.
When she prays, who does she pray to- to the God with the son or the one without the son?
Will she go to her Christian Church and preach that God had a son, then rush to the Mosque and preach the opposite, and other contradictions?

Or she might just omit the differences between the religions and only focus on general similarities; but Muslims and Christians might eventually ask to hear something specific.

She can not believe 100% both as she claims. She simply must believe either story some of the time- she can’t believe in both all of the time.

I remember, when I was a child, that I discovered that Santa didn’t exist, and I kept disbelieving in Santa throughout the year. But when Christmas came, I temporarily changed my mind because I wanted to believe the Santa thing, it was so exciting. I was able to convince myself that he did exist and re-experience all the excitement. Perhaps it’s the same with her. She might just ‘want’ to believe in both and convinces herself.

I have the impression that this is the case with many religious people- they surely must know that the whole God thing is far fetched, but they choose to believe anyway because of personal reasons, e.g. it makes them feel good, feel loved, feel stronger, feel less lonely, have more power, want their morals backed up by a group, or for some, they like the social side of being part of the church.

Celivia,

What I'd like to know is how far the Episcopalian Church of the USA is prepared to tolerate dual religious adherence. How about an Episcopalian priest who is also a Catholic? Or a Baptist? Or an orthodox Jew? Or a Mormon?

How about an Episcopalian priest who is also a Satanist?

Celivia,

Good post. Michael Polanyi, physical scientist turned philosopher, would add an artistic or religious performance requires the audience "indwell" in goings-on. A church service is experiential and doctrinaire: The deep purpose is not to exchange or even provide information.

Moreover, theologians do not adopt a null hypthesis [i.e., my belief is wrong and I will test for this.] and do not act forsensically. Their methodologies [deliberately so] are pre-nineteen century. Their creed is largely fourth century and only loosely related to the Jesus house groups of the first century.

In this way, the earlier, very human organisations, churches [cum temples] and priesthoods, in a way sort of kidnapped Christianity and expanded it [Paul & Nicaea], institutionalised it[Nicaea], and, further interpreted it [Augustine and Trent and the Reformation generally].

So, what we have in a mass or church-place performace is people indwelling in theocratic constructionism based not fully on the life of one person, who may or may not have lived. The accretions are too large in number. Moreover, the churches have fractionalised and have different accretions representing different interpretations.

[Given there were plenty of Jewish Messiahs around at the time, going back to the Geeks even. So, I believe a human person called Jesus [aka Joshua or Ieous] may have lived.].

Thanks for your comments.

Hang on a minute, this thread has somehow gone haywire, now we are using geeks, christians, mormons, jews and catholics and the rest, in the same sentence, surely this has to turn the light on to see through the murky water? This is what it's all about, belief, what the individual, as a human being has become. I mean, look ol'cruise, Scientology? come on, give me a break, his money and fame has lead him to do strange things but there again, it's up to the individual, luckily, Nicole got out of that one quickly!

Y'know... the world would be a much better place if we didn't care what defines religion.

Ok, say you call yourself a Christian, Muslim, Hindu whatever... that's cool, but really - can't we just leave it at that?

Why this need to define categories and 'stick with the team?' Why this ritualism? Why this need to reinforce belief ad nauseum?

Truly, it isn't necessarily religion that generates conflict - it's this need to shout it from the rooftops.

I find Christians who walk the walk without the need to talk the talk, to be much more admirable.

I have no problems with Redding’s stance persé, as an individual. To me, all faith is made of the same kind of fairy dust and there’s no particular religion that can be proven right or wrong. I’d be happy to see the appearance of a ‘one fits all’ Church, but I doubt that the Episcopalian Church will claim that opportunity as its mission just because one of their priests is praying around.
I can’t see how this could be done as long as all denominations and religions insist that their faith is the correct one and all the other ones are simply wrong.

Correct me if I’m misinformed but I think that there is already a religion that accepts all world religions: The Baha’is are monotheists who believe that God sent not one but many messengers- as manifestations of God- to earth, including Jesus AND Mohammed.
So, for a different angle, if all religions would accept that Mohammed was a manifestation of God just like Jesus, then what rev. Redding does is not so odd after all.

But the reality is different.
Unfortunately, for most Christians and Muslims, the Jesus and Mohammed issues are not negotiable.
When Redding preaches to a Muslim community, isn’t she saying, in the eyes of the Anglican community: “Ignore that Jesus said that he is the son of God.” Does she imply that Jesus was lying or that the Bible is wrong? That’s a big thing in the eyes of most Christian leaders.

When the Episcopalian church decided to accept marriage of same sex couples and homosexual priests, it was seen as a crisis by the Anglican community although it didn’t cause a split (unless I’ve missed something). Will the Anglican Church expel the Episcopalian Church this time? It’s always more difficult for larger religious institutions to change their beliefs as they have to admit that what they have been saying for centuries was wrong or that their holy texts had previously been wrongly interpreted. For example, the denominations who accept homosexuality had to admit that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon.

The primary teaching of Christ is rooted in generous forgivness.

No matter how badly one has behaved in the past, God forgives the one who forsakes their sin.

No matter how badly another has treated you in the past - an attitude of forgivness identifies one as a follower of Christ, who forgave even his murderers. Yes Christ Jesus was condemned guilty by Jewish law as a blasphemer for claiming God as his Father [missunderstood]. He was put to death by Roman soldiers putting down a Jewish rebellion against the Romans occupying the Temple. The money changers were charging extortinate prices on purchases for Temple sacrifices too raise money for the Romans to build a viaduct to the city. The State was controlling the practise of their Religion.

Natural law demands equality of justice, "eye for eye" etc, but Jesus requests us to follow him which calls for a constant attitude of forgivness. "Hold no grudges!" Forgive those that do wrong even though they have not given an apology. The attitude of forgivness toward wrong doers is essential in changing society to a more tolerant and caring society. Behaving in anti-social ways is a sign of immaturity.

Christ calls us to follow him the epitome of divine maturity. However when one becomes a follower of Christ they live to ensure they owe no one anything justly owed. That is why they should constantly pray "we reconcile our debts even as You [Lord]have reconciled us". We do not excuse bad behaviour, but we accept the person without prejudice, even as God has forgiven us. Christ calls us to be more generous than expected, If someone requires your coat give him also your cloak. This is the principle of generosity beyond natural justice.

I am neither an aethiest nor a follower, just a person looking in from the outside, I have a problem with the following: When things go right, its the lords willing, when things go wrong, the lord works in mysterious ways, you win money in the sweepstakes, its "praise the lord" you suffer an illness its "what have I done to deserve this?"
Whenever there is no answer, one tries his/her best to fathom out whatever their situation is, to the best of their ability and it's only their own doing, out of pure unadulterated drive and persistance, that they achieve the answers or their best, the big guy upstairs has nothing to do with it, so why make excuses for him when things go wrong or right? Its plain human input in these instances, no one else.
I was brought up with "god took your brother because he was such a kind person" Give me a break!

SPANKY ! WELL SAID mate.. that last post was bordering in the 'inspired' :) thanx so much for pointing out that a lot of contemporary Christian attitude is tantamount to 'glorified superstition'.

If ever the Church needed that message it is now. I hereby appoint you as itinerant 'truth sayer' for many evangelical local churches in Australia.
No..I'm not being in the slightest sarcastic, I'm very serious (except the intinerant thingy :)

I get 'hyper cringe' each time an pastor or someone goes to the podium and "Thanx God for the great weather". I feel like standing up and yelling "If it was raining cats and dogs, and you couldn't go out on your jet ski, or 4WD would you be praising God for it"?

ARRRRGH.. it frustrates the heck out of me. This is ONE reason why I have begun to involve myself in mini activist exercises. Life as a Christian can be sooooo much more adventurous than "Gee..its a great day, the Lord truly lives"

For me.. "So and so gave their heart to Christ, lets rejoice" is the kind of thing we should be celebrating. Not the jolly weather.

I should invite you to my Church to say this kind of thing to the faces of the 'saints' :)

I strongly recommend that you read the book of Acts.. you will quickly realize that any similarity between the life of the early Christians and todays version (in Australia) is often purely coincidental.

PHILO... point of order bro...

"repent..and believe in the Gospel"... (then forgiveness)

"If your brother comes to you.. n times"

The statements about forgiveness I think should be seen in the light of the many about where it is connected to repentance.

I do agree that we should not hold grudges... no argument there, but I don't think we need to forgive where there is no repentance.
Not holding grudges is one level, forgiveness without basis seems a bit strange though. We have no grounds for forgiving people who are unrepentant.

When the Lord said "forgive us AS we forgive those who sin against us".... don't you think this means: "As the Father forgives us when we are repentant, so we should also forgive those who have sinned against us when they are repentant" ?

I do.

Not forgiving someone who is unrepentant, does not mean we have to dwell on it daily or moment by moment and get all churned up about it.

Boaz,
Thanks for the comment - the concept of debtors comes from the requirement to return land to the family that it has been acquired from. Forgiving a debt means releasing a debitor even though the debt is unpaid. "Forgive our debts even as we forgive our debtors".

(Deut 15: 1 –9 “15:1 At the end of every seven years you shall make a release. 15:2 Every creditor that loaned unto his neighbor shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother; because it is called the “LORD’S” release. 15:3 Of a foreigner you may exact it again: but that which is yours with thy brother your hand shall release; 15:4 Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God gives thee for an inheritance to possess it: 15:5 ..to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day. 15:6 For the LORD thy God blesses thee, as he promised thee: and thou shall lend unto many nations, ... 15:7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God gives thee, you shall not harden your heart, nor shut your hand from thy poor brother: 15:8 But you shall open your hand wide unto him, and shall surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wants. 15:9 Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou give him nothing; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee.)

Matthew 18: 21 - 35 is a prime example of the principle of forgiving even when equal justice is not met.

Boazy,

You wrote:

"It is unthinkable, that given the fulfillment of the New Covenant of Grace in Christ, (Jeremiah 31:31) that anyone could come along afterwards and claim any kind of divine authority."

You followed it up with.

"This applies to anyone making such claims."

There were a number of examples most self explanatory but included were:

-Jehovah's witnesses
-Any Pope.

During a slow time on the weekend I recalled your comment and got stuck on the idea that I can't relate these examples to your argument (any more of course than for one of the countless Christian denominations not mentioned). Hopefully I won't be drawn into a debate on the technicalities as I don't have time for that (and I know enough about both denominations to suspect that you are wrong) but I would like to know why you say that.

As Pauline would say please explain. If you can indulge me it would be appreciated.

Though natural justice demands equal payment of a debt - "eye for eye". That principle operates in most religions which means a payment by a person equal to the sum total of their lifes shortcomings.

Within Christianity the Grace of God to the greatest of offendors upon genuine repentance are given a new life. Recognising Christ paid the full penalty owing for all sin. People held captive to their past never realise their full God intended person. When freed from their past are then released to live full and rewarding lives. Persons realising they are freed from their guilt of failure are released from their debt.

The emphasis of Christ is to empower and fully employ a person in their new life

mjbp... ur right.. time is costly these days :)

Sure..I won't try to bog you down in a deep technical argument.

I made the point about the finality of Christ, because the RC church would have us believe that the Pope is the earthly representative of Christ, and the only true 'head' of the physical Church here.. (under Christ of course).. The Pope is supposed to be 'infallable' in his decisions. This leads of course to the idea of a Pope making all manner of declarations which might be 'close enough' to Christian doctrine to be 'acceptable' to the masses.
Let me give you a good example.

Galatians 1 makes it clear that "anyone who preaches a different gospel, may he be cursed, and eternally condemned". Now. with an 'infallable' earthly head of the Church, it would not take much for him to say "So..anyone who preaches a different faith or gospel should be ELIMINATED" and this is exactly what happened in the Inquisition.

I mentioned the JW's because they tend to make great pronouncements "The 2nd coming will be in 1914" which came and went, but .......no "as the light flashes across the sky" 2nd coming eventuated. So...they rationalize this (or at least the JW version of eschatology did at the last time I debated with them) to say "BUT WAIT... He DID return"..and then they woffled on about the exact nature of this, and how that connected to the JW tradition and status.

It also applies to 'MOhammad'... and others who claim 'finality' in Islam.. there is one bloke in Pakistan (behind the 'Submission.org' site) who claims to be the 'final' final prophet/messenger of Islam.

Hope that clarifies things.
Have a nice next weekend :)

Philo. Interesting subject.But if we are to request forgiveness from the Father, 'as we forgive' those who sin against us, and your mention of the Jubilee... are you suggesting that our forgiveness has nothing to do with the crucifixion on our behalf ?

Boaz,
Forgivness that effects reconciliation under the Law requires a debt to be paid equal to the debt owed. Under Christianity the price paid by Christ is far beyond the price of our debt. Which was paid regardless of the amount of our debt. God went twice the distance on our behalf to demonstrate forgivness, even before we repented. It is that demonstration of his forgivness that causes our response - that changes our attitudes and life. It is this understanding of the gospel as applied in our life that causes others to see we are also forgive even before they repent.

Boaz,
Go for it mate, stick it to 'im!
So many laws to abide by, so many things to answer to, yes... we are endebted to the hilt for life and we continue to try and live up to the messages left to us.. 2000 YEARS AGO.. IN THE YEAR OF OUR lORD, YOUR lORD, WHO'S EVER, and still with today's technology, we try to live up to these expectations, which in fact were written when people thought the earth was flat. One finds it difficult to live up to the bible, what would have happened indeed if the computor was available in "His" time? Email everyone?

SPANKY SAID: "One finds it difficult to live up to the bible"

No mate :) It is not 'difficult' but impossible.

But as our lives are immersed in Christ we can, like Paul say

Philippians 3

12) Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
13) Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead,
14) I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

COMMENT:
I encourage you (and all) to let Him...take hold of your life(ves)

Good point BD it is not a matter of trying in our old predesposed nature of sin which views offensive behaviour as OK. We need a change of values to aspire to serve and build others and make honest confession of our shortcomings - as we all fail. The joy of seeing others lifted to a more satisfying life is a reward worth working for.

Remembering Jesus gave his life to give each of us the ultimate life.

One aspect of these threads that I particularly enjoy is that they inevitably lead my questioning into new areas.

As I have probably mentioned before, I am very keen on questions. Far more keen, in fact, than I am on answers. Answers - if they appear to be sufficiently plausible, and can stand being knocked about a bit without breaking - can be very constricting. No room to move, to flex ones intellectual muscles.

The direction my thoughts have been taking in the last few days is one of the "why?" questions.

Why did God choose to land Jesus among us i) in a period of history when relatively few people could read or write, ii) at a time when there was no printing, no radio, no TV, no Internet, i.e. when communication was inconceivably primitive, with word-of-mouth the most common - but least reliable - method, and iii) as a Jew, never the least controversial tribe on the planet, either then or now...?

The motivation behind my question is simply this.

If his existence were unequivocal and uncontroversial, there simply would not be any cause for strife between religious factions. In fact there wouldn't need to be religious factions at all, really...

Just think how few wars there would be, if we knew, instead of having to have this thing called "faith". Because "faith" is an emotional thing, and when we are forced into a battle between conflicting emotions, strife is the only possible result.

Odd. Really odd. You would have thought, what with his repoutation for being compassionate and merciful and all that, that he would have spared his creation the sight of so many people being killed, century in, century out, in the name of one "faith" or another.

I sincerely hope that no-one has an answer to this.

Because it is such a very good question, it would be a shame to spoil it.

ANSWER TO PERICLES :) sorry P.. I just couldn't resist that.

No, there is no answer really. I don't think there are many Christians who have not asked the same ones.

There are many 'why's in life. Please read (if you haven't already) Ecclesiastes.. they are all there. Honestly, it is a book of a few chapters that every human should read I reckon.

On your point about the 'timing' of Christs coming, it was really a good time, Pax Romana, Roman roads, Greek Language, Good memories :)

But as you demonstrated, there are always reasons we can find about the deficiencies of any period in time for such a coming.

As I've often said I'm sure.. I place myself in the mind of one like Paul.. a man with a very set course in life, (Destroy this faith) yet.. who unexpectedly encounters the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus.
Of all people, you would think HE had 'all the answers'.....but alas, his answer will never satisfy the modern mind.

A) His emotional predicament: Romans 9

1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit—
2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.
3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race,....

B) His Spiritual/Philosophical Predicament:

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust?

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use.

ETERNITY MEETS TIME AND SPACE... in those questions above, Paul was not unaware of the philosophical ramifications of his position.
His problem was.....'Damascus road'

Ever obedient to your wishes, Boaz, I took a look through Ecclesiates.

(One day you will return the compliment by picking up Mosley's "My Life". At least, you ought. You owe it to yourself)

To me, Ecclesiastes reads like an early management manual, complete with catchy turns of phrase and memorable lines.

But it isn't real.

"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever"

I know that these guys didn't have the educational advantages that we have, so they were unable to know that the earth has no chance of abiding for much longer - a couple of billion years at the most.

But that in turn is worrying. If they were "just these guys" writing what would easily pass for pop philosophy ("to everything (turn, turn, turn) There is a season (turn, turn, turn) And a time for every purpose, under heaven..." oh sorry, that was The Byrds) then what is it doing in the Bible? Clearly, there is no divine spark that adds some essential insight, over and above the talent of an early management consultant.

So I'm a little puzzled what you imagined I would gain from reading the work of an anonymous Hebrew poet.

It's catchy stuff, of course. But the Byrds were catchy too, in a popp-y sixties kind of way.

Pericles... the only thing I'd expect you to gain from reading Ecclesiasties.. is some insight into the fact that the questions we ask today have already been asked 'then'... nothing is new. The supposedly anonymous hebrew poet is most likely Solomon if the internal evidence is considered.

He basically goes though the list of things normally said to give our lives meaning, points out the defficiencies of them...and reaches a conclusion.

Do you know of any similiar piece of literature from a similar period ?

(thanx for reading it by the way.. and yes.. I will read Mosely at Christmas if you send.. newlifeinhim777@yahoo.com.au if you want a P.O. box... which I'll let you know by email.)

regards

Sorry Boaz, I thought the Solomon attribution had been thoroughly debunked, and the "anonymous Hebrew poet" theory was now prevalent.

But hey, what do I know?

>>the only thing I'd expect you to gain from reading Ecclesiasties.. is some insight into the fact that the questions we ask today have already been asked<<

I need absolutely no convincing that these questions, and many others, have been asked ever since man could grunt out a coherent sentence.

But if it was indeed Solomon, and he was indeed as wise as they say, and the only thing to learn is that there are some eternal questions, then...

(you know what's coming, don't you?)

... why is it that you continue to insist that you and your religion between you know the answers?

Doesn't wisdom lie, as Solomon and I appear to agree, in continually developing new questions, humbly aware that we are far too stupid ever to understand the answer, even if it were to appear as a piece of four-be-two, and whack us between the eyes?