Religious Book Discusion Groups

[curmudgeon]

At my local Church we try to get as many members of the congregation as
possible involved in Religious themed books as we possibly can.
Two books that are now up for consideration are, the Purpose Driven Church,
by Rick Warren, and Christianity for the rest of Us, by Diana Butler Bass.



"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
*CUR*

[AJA]

Post by curmudgeon
At my local Church we try to get as many members of the congregation as
possible involved in Religious themed books as we possibly can.
Two books that are now up for consideration are, the Purpose Driven Church,
by Rick Warren, and Christianity for the rest of Us, by Diana Butler Bass.

At my UMC a small group study of Rick Warren's book produced amazing results
apart from salve to our Methodist souls caught between Calvinism and
Arminianism. :)) Out of that group came a new Sunday evening alternative
worship service, and eventually a re-building of the Sunday School
(materially and spiritually), and too many other things to mention.
Warren comes from a Baptist background which is partly why we didn't accept
every word on every page prima facie, however our discussions brought a
depth of sharing I hadn't seen the like of before at RUMC, and I've been in
many adult study groups there.

Blessings,
Ann Ahnemann

[Bren]

Post by curmudgeon
At my local Church we try to get as many members of the congregation as
possible involved in Religious themed books as we possibly can.
Two books that are now up for consideration are, the Purpose Driven Church=

,

Post by curmudgeon
by Rick Warren, and Christianity for the rest of Us, by Diana Butler Bass.=
"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
*CUR*

B - all religions? or just Christianity themed ones?. I tend to love
to read books on all faiths written from the perspective of those
actually IN the faith themselves to get ONE truth of the matter. My
faves are books by Gardiner and Freke and Gandy on the Pagan Christ
etc. I also love the Bhagavad Gita and Sufi texts.

B.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Bren

Post by curmudgeon
At my local Church we try to get as many members of the congregation as
possible involved in Religious themed books as we possibly can.
Two books that are now up for consideration are, the Purpose Driven Church=

,

Post by curmudgeon
by Rick Warren, and Christianity for the rest of Us, by Diana Butler Bass.=
"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
*CUR*

B - all religions? or just Christianity themed ones?. I tend to love
to read books on all faiths written from the perspective of those
actually IN the faith themselves to get ONE truth of the matter.

The problem is, of course, that by following this procedure, you almost
certainly guarantee that the 'truth' you get is not truth at all. There can be
only one 'adequatio' in the classic definition of truth, "adequatio rei et
intellectus".

Not to mention, there cannot be more than one truth. Everything else is only
approximation, whether good or bad. But once you insist on there being more than
one, you guarantee your approximation will be bad.

[AJA]

Post by Bren

Post by curmudgeon
At my local Church we try to get as many members of the congregation as
possible involved in Religious themed books as we possibly can.
Two books that are now up for consideration are, the Purpose Driven Church=
by Rick Warren, and Christianity for the rest of Us, by Diana Butler Bass.=

B - all religions? or just Christianity themed ones?. I tend to love
to read books on all faiths written from the perspective of those
actually IN the faith themselves to get ONE truth of the matter. My
faves are books by Gardiner and Freke and Gandy on the Pagan Christ
etc. I also love the Bhagavad Gita and Sufi texts.

Wonderful pieces of literature we should all read. The Tibetan Book of the
Dead, even Plato's Timaes, and The Republic, maybe the Pistis Sophia. Al
could be enlightening. But thsoe are not the kind of book curmudgeon was
considering for his particular study.
And what, pray tell, is the Pagan Christ?

Blessings,
Ann

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <C5YHj.2427$***@trndny06>, AJA says...
[snip]

Post by AJA
Wonderful pieces of literature we should all read. The Tibetan Book of the
Dead,

Not sure why you includes this as 'wonderful'...

Post by AJA
even Plato's Timaes, and The Republic,

These are both great books, but they are NOT what Plato intended as introductory
works. Rather, the common choices for college courses, the Apology, Crito,
Euthyphro, all make much better introductions.

Also important are the Meno, Euthyphro, Gorgias and Theaetetus. All of these are
more fundamental than the Timaeus. And they all make more lively reading than
the Republic, with its long chain of "Yes, Socrates", "But of course, Socrates"
and a thousand variations on those;)

We even have anecdotal evidence that Plato did not lecture on the topics of the
Timaeus until the student was quite advanced -- and over 40.

The Gorgias was particular popular among Christian Greeks of the Byzantine
Empire, because of the 'myth' that sounded _so_ much like the Christian teaching
of rewards/punishments in the next life.

[snip]

[curmudgeon]

"Bren" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Q6YGj.6127$***@trndny06...

all religions? or just Christianity themed ones?. I tend to love
to read books on all faiths written from the perspective of those
actually IN the faith themselves to get ONE truth of the matter. My
faves are books by Gardiner and Freke and Gandy on the Pagan Christ
etc. I also love the Bhagavad Gita and Sufi texts.



In the adult explorer class we used the Cokesbury text book
World Religion by Lewis M.Hopfe.
And as a back up of sorts to this book we used
Sun Songs creation myths from around the world
edited by Raymond Van Over.

[B]

Post by AJA

Post by Bren

Post by curmudgeon
At my local Church we try to get as many members of the congregation as
possible involved in Religious themed books as we possibly can.
Two books that are now up for consideration are, the Purpose Driven Church=
by Rick Warren, and Christianity for the rest of Us, by Diana Butler Bass.=

B - all religions? or just Christianity themed ones?. I tend to love
to read books on all faiths written from the perspective of those
actually IN the faith themselves to get ONE truth of the matter. My
faves are books by Gardiner and Freke and Gandy on the Pagan Christ
etc. I also love the Bhagavad Gita and Sufi texts.

Wonderful pieces of literature we should all read. The Tibetan Book of the
Dead, even Plato's Timaes, and The Republic, maybe the Pistis Sophia. Al
could be enlightening. But thsoe are not the kind of book curmudgeon was
considering for his particular study.
And what, pray tell, is the Pagan Christ?
Blessings,
Ann

B - hmmm...well I don't see him saying this...I see him talking about
religious books...so for me that can mean any kind. Did he tell you
something different? The Pagan Christ is some scholars interpretation
of an earlier (pre-Nicene)take on Jesus as another take on the
agricultural rising and falling gods ..a take on Mithas (read the
similarities to their histories...almost indentical). Not that they
are saying that Jesus the man did not exist but that people overlaid
an earlier mythos ontop of him so that followers would indeed follow
him. The Pagan Christ (or was that Pagan Jesus?) was written by Freke
and Grandy and there are many other scholars who question the
traditional story of Christ as well..Matthew Fox for one.
Good to get an rounded view on Christ I feel.

Bren

[AJA]

. The Pagan Christ (or was that Pagan Jesus?) was written by Freke

Post by B
and Grandy and there are many other scholars who question the
traditional story of Christ as well..Matthew Fox for one.
Good to get an rounded view on Christ I feel.

But I still fail go understandf why a person would pattern their lives on a
Pagan Christ or a Pagan Jesus. And I still don't understand the very terms.
Blessings,
Ann

[AJA]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by AJA
Wonderful pieces of literature we should all read. The Tibetan Book of
the
Dead,

Not sure why you includes this as 'wonderful'...

Too lofty an accolade, I agree. Interesting look at death and dying, as a
comparison to the truth that Jesus taught and then demonstrated. I do admit
to wondering as I was reading the TBotD who wants to die and be reborn
untold times? And come back as what? With no guaranteed knowledge or
remembrance of things one needed to change in order to move on. In Christ
we have blessed assurance. And no god or gods have promised or done what
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have done are are doing. Certainly no
Mithras.
Blessings,
Ann

[B]

Post by AJA
But I still fail go understandf why a person would pattern their lives on a
Pagan Christ or a Pagan Jesus. And I still don't understand the very terms.
Blessings,
Ann

B = pagan comes from the latin paganus which was used by the Romans to
put down the simple country folk who did not worship the way they and
the city folk did. It was later used to mean anyone not of the
Abrahamic faiths. The Pagan Christ refers to the idea that Jesus's
STORY was not truly his but put upon him by those who wanted to take
away the worship of Mithras, Apollo, Dionysus...any of the solar or
agricultural gods...and put it on him to get more people to accept him
as beyond human..but a god. Since in those days no one thought a man
could be a god...they felt the need to make Jesus less human and more
God-like. Whether his story was applied later on or the truth....there
are some Christians who have this view. We have little in the way of
proof for either..so it comes down to what you believe and what you
know from within.
Blessings B.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <SVVIj.20940$***@trndny08>, B says...


[snip]

Post by B
B = pagan comes from the latin paganus which was used by the Romans to
put down the simple country folk who did not worship the way they and
the city folk did.

Who is doing the "put down" here? Was it the ancient Romans, or is it Bren,
putting down the ancient Romans with this accusation of a 'put down'? The word
did not have any 'put down' to it, at least not at first. Only possibly later,
with the stubborn impenitence of the pagans, did it pick up any 'put down'.

[snip]

Post by B
Since in those days no one thought a man
could be a god...

This is patently false. We should take this error as an example of how very
unreliable Bren's opinions are.

Of _course_ the people of those days thought men could be gods. Didn't you know
that the Roman Senate routinely declared emperors gods after their death? Didn't
you know that the Pharaohs were considered living gods? Didn't you know that St.
Clement of Alexandria listed a _long_ list of mere men who were declared to be
gods?

You have outdone yourself in bold ignorance, Bren. No plea of "in my opinion"
can make up for the blatant falsehood of _this_ 'opinion'.

[snip]

[AJA]

Post by B

Post by AJA
But I still fail go understandf why a person would pattern their lives on
a
Pagan Christ or a Pagan Jesus. And I still don't understand the very
terms.
Blessings,
Ann

B = pagan comes from the latin paganus which was used by the Romans to
put down the simple country folk who did not worship the way they and
the city folk did. It was later used to mean anyone not of the
Abrahamic faiths.

Thank you. I have a dictionary also.

Post by B
The Pagan Christ refers to the idea that Jesus's
STORY was not truly his but put upon him by those who wanted to take
away the worship of Mithras, Apollo, Dionysus...any of the solar or
agricultural gods...and put it on him to get more people to accept him
as beyond human..but a god.

New age pap. And not just my opinion.

Post by B
Since in those days no one thought a man
could be a god...they felt the need to make Jesus less human and more
God-like. Whether his story was applied later on or the truth....there
are some Christians who have this view.

No. They are not Christians who have this view. This is not even the
"merest" Christianity, Brenda. I'm honestly puzzled as to where you would
get this stuff, or why you would continue to bring it here. God bless you.
But this is the most simplistic, silly 'faith', and I doubt it is faith.
Sounds like a childrens fairy story.

Post by B
We have little in the way of
proof for either..so it comes down to what you believe and what you
know from within.

The most basic course in logic might be helpful. Think very seriously where
such a statement leads one: I believe that mice inhabit the sky and are
sent to watch us. Now, you believe me, right, Benda, because I tell you I
believe it and it comes from within. You see, this is the very reason the
Christian doesn't just go off in a field somewhere and do some private
'worshipping' feeling enlightened that they have something that comes from
the _self_, from what _a_ person believes. That is a religion of the self,
Brenda. And the 'self' dies. This is why Christian herr on this list and
Christians everywhere are worshipping _in community_, be it RC, Orthodox,
Methodist, etc. These are _churches_. They are not off the wall separate
entities. They are traditional, reasonable, experiencial as in Christian
communal experience, and they are scriptural. What being a Christian does
_not_ mean is that you get to go around teaching, leading people, preaching,
what you and you alone, apart from tradition or any other church authority
believe Christ is and is not. There is no reality whatsoever in a 'pagan
Jesus" or "pagan Christ".

Blessing to you, Bren. Please continue to study, and understand
Christianity, the orthodox kind- as we all are very much trying to
understand where you are coming from.
Blessings,
Ann

[B]

On Mar 31, 6:41 pm, curmudgeon <***@bresnan.net> wrote:
**snip

Post by curmudgeon
And as a back up of sorts to this book we used
Sun Songs creation myths from around the world
edited by Raymond Van Over.

B - thanks Curmudgeon. Books of faith I would also recommend are any
of the Findhorn books because the folks who created the garden went on
nothing but faith in God and the information from the elementals. The
garden is a concrete proof to behold on the northern tip of
Scotland.
I would also read books by Lance Armstrong because purely on faith he
cured his cancer. God and God wisdom can be found in the most
interesting of places.
Blessings B.

[Jani]

Post by B
. The Pagan Christ (or was that Pagan Jesus?) was written by Freke

Post by B
and Grandy and there are many other scholars who question the
traditional story of Christ as well..Matthew Fox for one.
Good to get an rounded view on Christ I feel.

But I still fail go understandf why a person would pattern their lives on
a
Pagan Christ or a Pagan Jesus. And I still don't understand the very
terms.
Blessings,
Ann

The 'Pagan Christ' is a newage invention; it's a mixture of gnosticism,
Jungian archetypes, and all-myths-are-one-myth.

http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_thepaganchrist.asp

I rather liked "the early Christian church covered up all attempts to reveal
the Bible as myth", considering that the early Christian church didn't even
*have* a Bible, let alone one they found it necessary to debunk.

Jani

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B

Post by AJA
But I still fail go understandf why a person would pattern their lives on a
Pagan Christ or a Pagan Jesus. And I still don't understand the very terms.
Blessings,
Ann

B = pagan comes from the latin paganus which was used by the Romans to
put down the simple country folk who did not worship the way they and
the city folk did. It was later used to mean anyone not of the
Abrahamic faiths.

Pagan - origin of the term.
Source: Fox 1987:30.
"In antiquity, pagans already owed a debt to Christians.
Christians first gave them their name, pagani... In everyday
use, it meant either a civilian or a rustic. Since the
sixteenth century the origin of the early Christians' usage
has been disputed, but of the two meanings, the former is the
likelier. Pagani were civilians who had not enlisted through
baptism as soldiers of Christ against the powers of Satan. By
its word for non-believers, Christian slang bore witness to
the heavenly battle which coloured Christians' view of life."

[B]

On Apr 6, 7:27 pm, Steve Hayes <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
...

Post by Steve Hayes
Pagan - origin of the term.
Source: Fox 1987:30.
"In antiquity, pagans already owed a debt to Christians.
Christians first gave them their name, pagani... In everyday
use, it meant either a civilian or a rustic. Since the
sixteenth century the origin of the early Christians' usage
has been disputed, but of the two meanings, the former is the
likelier. Pagani were civilians who had not enlisted through
baptism as soldiers of Christ against the powers of Satan. By
its word for non-believers, Christian slang bore witness to
the heavenly battle which coloured Christians' view of life."

B - Yup that's one history of the word. Not sure if it is the true one
but Paganus meaning "of the countryside" was from what I have heard
applied to the backwoods folk for their adherence to old ways...sort
of like someone calling someone a hick. It morphed into those not
Christian,Jew or Muslim. I would doubt they felt they owed Christians
anything really but that many were kind neighbours and some not so
kind. Blessings B.

[B]

Post by Jani
The 'Pagan Christ' is a newage invention; it's a mixture of gnosticism,
Jungian archetypes, and all-myths-are-one-myth.
http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_thepaganchrist.asp
I rather liked "the early Christian church covered up all attempts to reveal
the Bible as myth", considering that the early Christian church didn't even
*have* a Bible, let alone one they found it necessary to debunk.
Jani

B - whatever it is it is some persons beliefs and I let that be what
it may. I find it an interesting look and since a big fan of Jung it
touched a chord with me. I don't go in for it...it is not my
belief..but I can see how some can see things this way.As to the last
paragraph...hmmm well one site can't be the one interp of Pagan
Christianity any more than one witch can speak for all witches or one
Christian for all Christians. Perhaps they had meant the early church
after the Bible had been collated ? I wouldn't assume. Still everyone
is entitled to their own faith I believe and their own interp of that
faith if the originator is not still alive and ready to correct them
or even recorded as such. Bren

[B]

Post by AJA

Post by B

Post by AJA
But I still fail go understandf why a person would pattern their lives on
a
Pagan Christ or a Pagan Jesus. And I still don't understand the very
terms.
Blessings,
Ann

B = pagan comes from the latin paganus which was used by the Romans to
put down the simple country folk who did not worship the way they and
the city folk did. It was later used to mean anyone not of the
Abrahamic faiths.

Thank you. I have a dictionary also.

Post by B
The Pagan Christ refers to the idea that Jesus's
STORY was not truly his but put upon him by those who wanted to take
away the worship of Mithras, Apollo, Dionysus...any of the solar or
agricultural gods...and put it on him to get more people to accept him
as beyond human..but a god.

New age pap. And not just my opinion.

B - perhaps some others too...but still an opinion as it can't be
proven anymore than the literal take on the Bible can be.

Post by AJA

Post by B
Since in those days no one thought a man
could be a god...they felt the need to make Jesus less human and more
God-like. Whether his story was applied later on or the truth....there
are some Christians who have this view.

No. They are not Christians who have this view. This is not even the
"merest" Christianity, Brenda.

B - Oh there are many Christians who have this view. If you think it
is not Christianity..then again..this is your view and some others but
not all.

I'm honestly puzzled as to where you would

Post by AJA
get this stuff, or why you would continue to bring it here. God bless you.

B - I am open to Christ and go where it leads. Why I would bring it
here is because this is a Christian newsgroup.

Post by AJA
But this is the most simplistic, silly 'faith', and I doubt it is faith.
Sounds like a childrens fairy story.

B - to some the idea of a God creating Eve from a rib...wondering
where Adam was in the garden one day when there are only two there and
he has to look? etc. can seem like the most Fairy-ish of fairy
stories. Simplistic? I don't agree. Faith? I don't know if it is a
"faith" per se as in an actual kind of Christianity or just that some
believe in it as a possibility. I don't personally go around calling
other faiths "silly" as I believe everyone has a right to their own
take of God and religion. I believe that if you want respect then you
must give respect. Whether "new age" or "silly story" ...it is
someone's belief and in that I respect them.

Post by AJA

Post by B
We have little in the way of
proof for either..so it comes down to what you believe and what you
know from within.

The most basic course in logic might be helpful. Think very seriously where
such a statement leads one: I believe that mice inhabit the sky and are
sent to watch us. Now, you believe me, right, Benda, because I tell you I
believe it and it comes from within.

B - No....I give you the right to your own belief though as I don't
ask anyone to agree with me but that I have my own way. I've not yet
asked anyone to go my way...just that this is what I believe and that
one can't speak for all Christians.

You see, this is the very reason the

Post by AJA
Christian doesn't just go off in a field somewhere and do some private
'worshipping' feeling enlightened that they have something that comes from
the _self_, from what _a_ person believes. That is a religion of the self,
Brenda. And the 'self' dies. This is why Christian herr on this list and
Christians everywhere are worshipping _in community_, be it RC, Orthodox,
Methodist, etc. These are _churches_. They are not off the wall separate
entities. They are traditional, reasonable, experiencial as in Christian
communal experience, and they are scriptural.

B - which in itself does not make it truth..but one experience of
Christ. An interpretation and then push of that interp as the only one
is a subjective personal thing ...very much the self as anything else
is. A building does not make that rendition of Christ anymore so...nor
does doing it in a group. It is just one way.

What being a Christian does

Post by AJA
_not_ mean is that you get to go around teaching, leading people, preaching,
what you and you alone, apart from tradition or any other church authority
believe Christ is and is not.

B - so truth is only more so when a select number of people serving as
priests go around telling you what is what? you believe that the
majority based on what Paul said..makes it so? what certain priests,
King James said was true? You don't see God as within? then you are
saying that God is limited for he/she/it stops at you?

There is no reality whatsoever in a 'pagan

Post by AJA
Jesus" or "pagan Christ".

B - such is your opinion my friend.

Post by AJA
Blessing to you, Bren. Please continue to study, and understand
Christianity, the orthodox kind- as we all are very much trying to
understand where you are coming from.
Blessings,
Ann

B - blessings upon you too Ann. Please continue to study and
understand Christianity from Christ itself and not needing any
intermediary to tell you what is real and not...or not. "We are all?"
you don't speak for all Christians here do you Ann? I speak my beliefs
in a
Christian newsgroup as do you. Your way is the wide road..mine is
not..this is where we differ. I worship Christ because I love
Christ..not because the larger crowd peer pressures me into it or any
such thing..but it is a real belief and love and personal experience.
If I wanted to do the orthodox kind I would go find a literal
biblicist group and not an all encompassing Christian one. I have no
problem with you being here...I ask only that you accept me as you
would like to be accepted. hugs, B

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <xUAKj.3689$***@trnddc06>, B says...
[snip]

Post by B

Post by AJA
New age pap. And not just my opinion.

B - perhaps some others too...but still an opinion as it can't be
proven anymore than the literal take on the Bible can be.

Actually, it can be proven. And since she said, "not just my opinion", I think
it is fair to expect her to either point us to a proof or start on the proof
herself in her response.

Post by B

Post by AJA

Post by B
Since in those days no one thought a man
could be a god...they felt the need to make Jesus less human and more
God-like. Whether his story was applied later on or the truth....there
are some Christians who have this view.

No. They are not Christians who have this view. This is not even the
"merest" Christianity, Brenda.

B - Oh there are many Christians who have this view.

So you love to repeat. But it is only _your_ opinion. It is not an opinion
shared by those who actually know what they are talking about.

Post by B
If you think it
is not Christianity..then again..this is your view and some others but
not all.

But this is irrelevant. It does not _have_ to be a "view of all". It only has to
be the view of those who know what they are talking about. And that it is.

Post by B
I'm honestly puzzled as to where you would

Post by AJA
get this stuff, or why you would continue to bring it here. God bless you.

B - I am open to Christ and go where it leads.

No, you are not. What is more, this is where you should havce admitted that it
is "only your opinion". It is not Christ that leads you away from Christ.

[snip]

[AJA]

B:
I wasn't going to respond further on this. But some things are impossible
to ignore.

Post by B
A building does not make that rendition of Christ anymore so...nor
does doing it in a group. It is just one way.

The Church is not a building. I didn't say it was. The Church is not even
a "group".
The Church is a community of believers- which has authority to be called
Christian, and which has been instructed by St. Paul, for one basic
authority, St. Peter and others not to teach or preach wrongly about Christ
Jesus.

Post by B
B - so truth is only more so when a select number of people serving as
priests go around telling you what is what?

Not "priests", Brenda. The community of believers which is the Church. Two
thousand years plus old.

Post by B
you believe that the
majority based on what Paul said..makes it so? what certain priests,
King James said was true?

Oh, and _so_ many more Saints and Authorities (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
as passed on to us in Scripture.
You don't see God as within? then you are

Post by B
saying that God is limited for he/she/it stops at you?

How in heaven's name did you make that leap?

Post by B
Please continue to study and
understand Christianity from Christ itself

Is this what is called a Freudian slip? _It_self? A thing? This is what
makes one truly wonder WhatWho is this Christ you believe in?

Post by B
and not needing any
intermediary to tell you what is real and not...or not.

Christ can then be a cookie if I say so. It's my opinion. Can you not see
a problem with that?

Post by B
Your way is the wide road..mine is
not..this is where we differ.

What does this mean?

Post by B
I worship Christ because I love
Christ..not because the larger crowd peer pressures me into it or any
such thing..but it is a real belief and love and personal experience.

Being a believing member of the 'orthodox' Christian Church in no way
obviates real belief and love and personal experience. Don't ever think
that.

Post by B
If I wanted to do the orthodox kind I would go find a literal
biblicist group and not an all encompassing Christian one.

I don't think you have ever told exactly what group it is you go to. What
is it called?

Post by B
.I ask only that you accept me as you
would like to be accepted.

I don't know you personally. And of course I accept you as a person,
Brenda, and for that person I give you a cyberhug back, because my Lord
loves the person you are. What I cannot accept is any interpretation being
represented as Christian which does not accept the full divinity and full
humanity of Jesus Christ. I have nothing whatever to say about whether you
will be saved, or not, and nothing whatever as to whether hell or heaven is
in your future or anyone's future.
You yourself may do greater works than the saints, love more than all the
heavenly host.
I don't know. And, I'm fully aware that perfect theology won't get any of
us into heaven.
However, I realize now after your last answer to me that I can't respond
any further to for you who continues to speak about Christ in a manner such

Post by B
Since in those days no one thought a man

Post by B
could be a god...they felt the need to make Jesus less human and more
God-like. Whether his story was applied later on or the truth....there
are some Christians who have this view.

So, I wish you well. And that your opinions afford you all the strength you
may need now and in the future. I mean the best for you, sincerely. Adieu.
Blessings,
Ann






hugs, B

[B]

B - and I will respond to Ann whether you read it or not at least to
give a response.

Post by AJA
I wasn't going to respond further on this. But some things are impossible
to ignore.
The Church is not a building. I didn't say it was. The Church is not even
a "group".
The Church is a community of believers- which has authority to be called
Christian, and which has been instructed by St. Paul, for one basic
authority, St. Peter and others not to teach or preach wrongly about Christ
Jesus.

B - the church whether the building or considering themselves the body
of Christ or a community of believers has no more
authority than anyone else to say which is true Christianity or
Christianity for that matter. St. Paul...is not Jesus and never has
been. I accept some of what he has said..but not all. I take my
nudgings from Christ at the core and where it can be found.

Post by AJA

Post by B
B - so truth is only more so when a select number of people serving as
priests go around telling you what is what?

Not "priests", Brenda. The community of believers which is the Church. Two
thousand years plus old.

B - which as I have said before makes them no more speakers of Christs
word than anyone else out there. They are Paulists and this is
truth..but whether or not they are speaking the words of Christ...it
is up to Christ and Christ alone to decide.

Post by AJA
You don't see God as within? then you are> saying that God is limited for he/she/it stops at you?
How in heaven's name did you make that leap?

B - I take that leap because it seems that you are looking at Christ
as outside of yourself...filtered through the hearts of men who are
fallible human beings as anyone else is..you and me included. You
don't question whether they are correct or not ...is this dogma?
indoctrination? or is it something you really do believe in? I don't
take well to someone telling me "this is this" no questions asked
unless that person is Christ itself .

Post by AJA

Post by B
Please continue to study and
understand Christianity from Christ itself

Is this what is called a Freudian slip? _It_self? A thing?

B - Christ is the anointed symbolic son of the symbolic Father to me.
Christ needs no gender. Jesus is a Christ because he fully enlightened
to that Christ and became the "I AM" ...but Christ itself..that part
of God (the microcosm) within is genderless,formless.

This is what

Post by AJA
makes one truly wonder WhatWho is this Christ you believe in?

B - the symbolic son of the symbolic Father (God is not symbolic but
the genderizing of the Creator is) . Christ is that still small voice
within us all that guides us to enlightenment and the shedding of that
"onion skin" to reveal the light or Christ within. I don't ask you to
agree or even understand but this newsgroup is for more than those who
think just like you...or even just like me..it is for all
Christians....both Orthodox,RC, as well as Protestant and Gnostic and
perhaps many others.

Post by AJA

Post by B
and not needing any
intermediary to tell you what is real and not...or not.

Christ can then be a cookie if I say so. It's my opinion. Can you not see
a problem with that?

R - Your interp of Christ is personal..I have no problem with how you
believe until you tell me how to believe. Until Jesus the Christ or
just Christ itself explains then who are we to say which person is
correct. My irritation has never been how someone worships or
believes..but that they don't try and speak as one for all Christians
and expect us all to agree with them or speaking from an objective
viewpoint when all they know is a subjective view. You don't see that
here in some folks? the need to tell everyone that they can only
worship in so and so a way? or that they have to follow the Bible..or
that they HAVE To...etc. ad nauseum??? Why not say this is the way I
do it and I can't speak for you?

Post by AJA

Post by B
Your way is the wide road..mine is
not..this is where we differ.

What does this mean?

R - Your way is the way of the many....mine is not. There are people
on this newsgroup that believe as I do..but we are small and many
don't say much if at all for fear of being shouted down or put down.
Conservative Christianity is larger here but that does not make it the
only way.

Post by AJA
Being a believing member of the 'orthodox' Christian Church in no way
obviates real belief and love and personal experience. Don't ever think
that.

B - I don't. I do thinking pushing a way or interp on others as the
only way...is sad and intolerant though.

Post by AJA

Post by B
If I wanted to do the orthodox kind I would go find a literal
biblicist group and not an all encompassing Christian one.

I don't think you have ever told exactly what group it is you go to. What
is it called?

B - I was asked why I was "here" on this newsgroup. I am here because
we all believe in Christ and all follow Christ.

Post by AJA
I don't know you personally. And of course I accept you as a person,
Brenda, and for that person I give you a cyberhug back, because my Lord
loves the person you are. What I cannot accept is any interpretation being
represented as Christian which does not accept the full divinity and full
humanity of Jesus Christ.

B - and you don't have to. No one is saying that you have to
personally accept that but to realize that you don't speak for
everyone. I also do accept the full divinity and humanity of Jesus
Christ so not sure where you got that from.

Post by AJA
However, I realize now after your last answer to me that I can't respond
any further to for you who continues to speak about Christ in a manner such

Post by B
Since in those days no one thought a man

Post by B
could be a god...they felt the need to make Jesus less human and more
God-like. Whether his story was applied later on or the truth....there
are some Christians who have this view.

B - You can't respond when I speak about how some people THINK? I
never said I believe it. I simply said what some believe. I can see
how misunderstandings happen when people don't really read what I say
and only interp it as they "hear it". This explains the different
understandings out there totally!

Post by AJA
So, I wish you well. And that your opinions afford you all the strength you
may need now and in the future. I mean the best for you, sincerely. Adieu.
Blessings,
Ann

B - I wish you well too Ann. May Christ show itself daily and may you
never hide that light under a bushel.
Blessings on you and your family for strength,understanding and
compassion.

love B.

[shegeek72]

Post by Matthew Johnson
The problem is, of course, that by following this procedure, you

almost

Post by Matthew Johnson
certainly guarantee that the 'truth' you get is not truth at all. There can be
only one 'adequatio' in the classic definition of truth, "adequatio rei et
intellectus".
Not to mention, there cannot be more than one truth. Everything else is only
approximation, whether good or bad. But once you insist on there being more than
one, you guarantee your approximation will be bad.

This is the Christian fundamentalist idea that there are 'absolute
truths' and no other religion holds these 'truths.' This supports an
'us v them' or 'I'm right and you're wrong' mentality that has lead to
narrow-mindedness and religious violence. In the minds of those who
believe this there is no other 'true' religion than Christianity.

When asked where this 'absolute truth' comes from they will say the
Bible, which they believe is inerrant and when asked why the Bible is
inerrant they will say because it's the 'word of God.' I encountered
this circular logic among otherwise intelligent people who wouldn't
accept a non-peer reviewed science journal, yet will accept an
anthology of translated manuscripts, where none of the original texts
exist, the meanings of missing or damaged portions was decided by
committee and many parts were passed down orally before being
transcribed.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
The problem is, of course, that by following this procedure, you

almost

Post by Matthew Johnson
certainly guarantee that the 'truth' you get is not truth at all. There can be
only one 'adequatio' in the classic definition of truth, "adequatio rei et
intellectus".
Not to mention, there cannot be more than one truth. Everything else is only
approximation, whether good or bad. But once you insist on there being more than
one, you guarantee your approximation will be bad.

This is the Christian fundamentalist idea that there are 'absolute
truths' and no other religion holds these 'truths.'

No, it is neither fundamentalist nor even specifically Christian. It is straight
out of the Aristotelian philosophical tradition.

Perhaps if you would actually take the time to learn before you post, you would
have known this, and spared yourself the much deserved embarassment of making
such a gross philosophical and historical error.

[snip]

[curmudgeon]

The problem at my Church is that in the past the Pastor would pick the book
to be discussed.
What usually happed was that book was way to difficult for the average
Church member to read let alone understand.
Until we have Faces by C.S.Lewis was such a book.
Our Pastor tried to explain this book but just came across as somewhere
between Condescending and Arrogant mores the pity.
This lost a great many of the book study group members.
We tried to get a study group up to discuss Dan Browns book the Da Vinci
Code, but the Pastor would not let us use any of the Church rooms to discuss
this secular book.
But after the movie came out, a good many former members of the book study
group began to talk about both the book and the movie in fellowship hall
after the Sunday morning service.
There were other books we studied with mixed reactions.
Religious and or Secular but with a good moral message for the most part.
Now our Pastor allows to pick and choose what books to read.
Lesson learned I guess!




"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
*CUR*

[curmudgeon]

I came to the Church book discussion group some time after the runaway
success of its The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren.
This book had the vast majority of the Church Congregation talking about it
in a very positive way.
It was felt by the Church powers that be that perhaps a Sabbatical was
needed before another book was chosen.
This is were I came in.
The book that was chosen was Until we have Face by C.S.Lewis, this has to be
the most boring book that I have ever read.
The overwhelming majority of the book discussion group felt the same way and
they left in drove.
The next book was Finding GOD in Unexpected Places by Philip Yancy, this was
not much better.
After that we tried the book The Gospel of Judas by Bart D.Ehrman, we slowly
began to bring back former book discussion members.
Then we tried Abraham by Bruce Feiler, now the book discussion group was
starting to regain some of its former glory or should I say respect?
Then we tried Christ the Lord out of Egypt by Anne Rice, now we were back on
track.
We now have a short list of books under consideration.
The next book up for discussion is Christianity for the rest of us by Diana
Butler Bass.

On the short list of possible future books open for discussion are,
not in any kind of order what so ever.
The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren.
Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson & David Oliver Relin.
The Year of Living Biblically by A.J.Jacobs.
Christ the Lord the Road to Cana by Anne Rice.
Walking the Bible by Bruce Feiler.
The Secret Supper by Javier Sierra.
God's Problem by Bart D.Hhrman.
The Lost Ark of the Covenant by Tudor Parfitt.
Ministry on Fire by B.Bruce Humphrey.
When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball.


"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
*CUR*

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <SVVIj.20942$***@trndny08>, curmudgeon says...
[snip]

Post by curmudgeon
The book that was chosen was Until we have Face by C.S.Lewis, this has to be
the most boring book that I have ever read.

Then you haven't read Aquinas in English translation;)

Post by curmudgeon
The next book up for discussion is Christianity for the rest of us by Diana
Butler Bass.
On the short list of possible future books open for discussion are,
not in any kind of order what so ever.
The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren.[snip]

Oh, I wish, I wish, I wish the group would read Iliotropion instead. Or if you
can't find that in English, "Unseen Warfare", whether in the original by Lorenzo
Scupoli, or, better yet, in the 'recension' by the Hagiorite Nicodemus. At least
these can be found on Amazon.

[curmudgeon]

The criteria for any book to be considered for discussion,
at my local Church are basically three fold.

How readable is it, is it to high-brow or to low-brow ?
Is it easy to obtain at a book store, supermarket or library ?
How much or little does it cost to buy the book ?
Religious or Secular is not really that important,
what is, does it have good strong moral message.
Cliff Notes or the like, help, but are not really that essential.


"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
*CUR*