Last time the Jesus Seminar came up, about a year ago, Walden tried to diminish it’s importance by associating it with Verhoeven and Showgirls and other movies. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. The only reason Verhoeven was admitted on the board is still for the same reason as I mentioned last time…
“Producer Paul Verhoeven, the only member of the group who does not have an earned doctorate in biblical studies, is making a major motion picture about Jesus “as he really was.” Tentatively titled Christ the Man, the film is strategically slated for release in the year 2000. Whatever one may make of the Jesus Seminar’s conclusions, their academic credentials are impeccable.” -The Lutheren
a. I think I’m more Universalist.
b. Yes. I’m turned off by all the JEEEESUUUSSSS stuff from the right wing.
c. In Hinduism, people choose the avatar of God which they personally relate to the best. It’s reasonable that the same would be true for anyone in any religion.
It wasn’t their purpose to examine each other’s new enlightenment. They met to examine older enlightenment…ancient documents sorted out reasonably without the aid of inspired guesswork.
These kinds of attitudes are way too common among people who profess Christianity, and it is disheartening to see how many people really think these things.
Perhaps enlightenment is like the sun–seemingly eternal–but yesterday’s light doesn’t work today, after rolling things over. Yesterdays light got used and traveled on. New light is always in order. We don’t know that anything is eternal. We may think it is, but what we think isn’t necessarily true.
Well, it’s not a theory really. I’m just saying that the visualization of the god concept which seems most compatible with me isn’t focused around Jesus.
The Bible thumpers and telescreechers seem to have a relatively definable image of a god, whereas I try not to encapsulate my thinking about the divine.
I replied here about eternalness and singularity, but it got way too metaphysical and philosophical for even me to follow. If I’m able to ‘earth it down’, I will post it later…mabey.
Dale: I agree with you here, but what’s the alternative? No relationship with God/Jesus outside of the confines of an organzied religion? I’m sure that’s not what you are suggesting, because there have been those folks involved in various churches over the years who have interpreted the bible/koran/etc., for their own good, (read bad stuff here), also.
I realize you were making a point, and an excellent one it is, but is there a way around this?
The wacky person who attributes his bizarre notions (in the vein Dale suggested) to God is not going to be saved from his illness by organized religion any more than the stable person is going to be beset by out of control notions just because he decided to go free-lance with God.
I have found some of my most meaningful and personally fulfilling reading material outside the boundaries of stuff normally promoted by the mainline Protestant church. Sometimes looking at spiritual issues from a vantage point other than the one you grew up with helps you see the familiar things, which before seemed stale, in new ways,
But every aspect of our lives are governed by a set of standards we do not control, or control very little. Our actions are bound by some form of dogma whether it be the customs of the tribe or the laws of the Supreme Court. Yes we want those restrictions to be as loose as possible but they have to be there. Why is religious thought any different? Without some guidence it will be like corks floating on a stormy ocean.
It looks to me like a lot of people here are proposing relativism which can’t stand up under it’s own logic.
There is no logic. Or, it’s relative logic, just as the Earth’s speed through space can only be measured relative to another celestial object.
But most people are most comforted by belief in a structure.
