a question for those of religious beliefs

Here is something i cant really grasp. If you sincerely and truly believe that christ is the son of god etc... then the only important thing should be his message. Where does the rest of the bible come into this? Or is it easier to change parts of his message which are inconvenient (eye for eye vs turn other cheek. But that incurs one of the major acts which jesus condemmed - that of hypocrisy.
enlighten me pls

a question for Christians with certain fundamentalist beliefs?

It seems that most religious people refer to the bible first above all else

The Bible excludes people for their sexual preferences and other choices. Christ forgave everyone and accepted everyone...I don't see how a "good" Christian can isolate homosexuals, or anyone else of other religious beliefs because the Bible said so. Simple and insecure people use Christianity as a way to explain their irrational feelings.

Fear is the name of the game. If there is a creator God, why on earth should I fear and worship that God? Would you expect that a good parent would expect his children to worship him?

I have religious beliefs, BUT, I pick and choose my biblical teachings. I have found a lot of valuable ideas in the Bible, and, of course, I found a lot of shit. I forget eye for eye and choose Jesus' teachings of love and help your fellow man.

"We should not be dealing with the Christian right, but with the right Christians". This "religious" person prefers to TRY (repukes make it hard) to live by Jesus's teachings rather than the interpetation of the Bible by evangelicals.

a number of popular 'religions' in the world

Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, Wicca, many, many indigenous religions
etc. etc..

If you please. I spend quite a bit time each day in the practice of my religion and it has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity.

Most Christians refer to the bible first. There are plenty of religious people that are not Christian; or any branch of judeo/christian faith, for that matter.

...who never met Jesus, historical or otherwise. He was the first religious huckster to invade the Jewish sect and was instrumental in making the whole thing palatable to Rome (eventually, long after his death).

Paul's wrinkle was that faith alone was sufficient for salvation, that one needn't bother with that "give all that you have to the poor and follow me" touchy-feely stuff.

Blame him for today's stingy hypochristians and cafeteria fundies.

Paul's wrinkle was that faith alone was sufficient for salvation, that one needn't bother with that "give all that you have to the poor and follow me" touchy-feely stuff.

Paul did emphasize faith, but he felt that the ceremonies and practices (such as keeping kosher) of Judaism were not necessary. I don't know that he dismissed the part about caring for the poor. Did he say anything about it at all?

I also know Jesus hung out with people who were considered sinners, but I think he forgave them as long as they didn't do the same thing again. I don't know that the forgiveness goes on and on forever. Why would Christians believe in hell if everybody gets forgiven and loved and excused of all their failings?

but is also the Judge of all...

there is an apparent tension between being the loving Shepard and also the Righteous Judge....He drew (and is) a clear line, those on one side attain salvation, those on the other side do not

I know that by the standards of the Bible I am an unrepentent sinner. Thus I can't be saved. I just can't abide a religion that says that by being me, I am unsalvagable.

but if a person (not just you)is unrepentant ie: not "sorry and trying to do better" why would they deserve to be forgiven?

Which the Bible makes clear it is.

and BTW..the way I read it being homosexual isn't a sin, it's homosexual activity...admittedly a distinction that won't be helpful to many people...

don't read homophobic stuff - let the self-righteous, pious, santimonious folk have it. I'd rather be around people like you.

I really appreciate that. This weekend promises to be very rough as I just lost my mom last month so things will be hard.

My sympathies to you and your family.

I just get so tired of hearing people base their bigotry and hatred on stupid words written by homophobic old men thousand of years ago: it boggles my mind. I find hypocritical regligious crap far more offensive than anything gay folk could ever be.

I hope I see her again someday. I honestly have no idea if I will. But thanks again and enjoy your weekend.

You would have to look at the original texts, and those I know who have said that the original texts are referring to basically something akin to male temple prostitutes.

try it in Greek (or a better translation).

Homosexuality is not condemned by the Bible.

and the Latin was in 9th and 10th grade so that isn't very practical for me. I kind of wish I had taken Greek though. I was very into the mythology as a kid. In any case I will have to look into it. I was raised fundy and they have one valid point. Once a person starts to challenge one part of the Bible then they are substituting their judgement for God's.

The only words in the Bible that mean anything to me are the Ten Commandments (they make the world work among people) and the Red Words in the New Testament. Those were Jesus' words. All else is interpretation.

Though Jesus said he came to fulfill the Old Testament, not to destroy it, well, I think he might have been having a little too much wine that particular day when that one was recorded. He pretty much destroyed a lot of the hostile edicts of the Old Testament. I just can't reconcile "turn the other check" versus "an eye for an eye." They're just plain opposite.

And I think we are all the sons and daughters of God. Jesus just acted like it more than many of us. He had integrity out the wazoo.

Yeah, I know, you won't hear that much (particularly from fundamentalists), but it's certainly true. It's also not surprising from a book of disparate writings gathered together over hundreds of years.

Most Christians I know and associate with recognize the Bible as an authoritative teaching, but equally important are personal experience and community sharing. It's quite tempting to read a passage in isolation and think that it represents the entirety of thought on a particular matter. That's why the community environment of a church family and regular discussion and instruction are so important. You'll often see well-meaning Christians stray in their walk when they over-emphasize one of these aspects over the others, and sometimes even to their deliberate exclusion. Congregations that isolate themselves and their membership are particularly vulnerable to error, and foment an "us-and-them" mentality as regards their relationship with "the world."

What are the practical applications of Christ as Messiah? Is it simply to be evangelical, to the point where nobody wants to associate with you because you're such a single issue pain in the ass? A number of evangelicals comfort themselves with the words from the Sermon on the Mount about being reviled for the sake of the gospel, but it's difficult to understand how being a self-righteous prig advances the Gospel message.

In advocating for the whole gospel for the whole person, our congregation acknowledges that one person or one congregation doesn't have a corner on the Truth, but that we believe we have some of the Truth, as do others. We are eager to share and to be shared with.

Yes,the most important thing is Jesus' message. Unlike Fundamentalists, we (not Fundamentalist) understand that the Bible is a helpful tool, giving historical perspective to human relationships, and living in a civilized way. It teaches lessons in various ways, through legends, myths, parables in order to explain the nature of God and how and why God seeks our friendship.

The Bible is a collection of books, written at different times and by many, many people. It is obviously useful, really necessary to keep in mind the audience to whom these early messages were given.

Fundamentalists use the Bible as a cook book, to be taken literally and at face value, ignoring the fact that the original audiences for these books were ancient people who lived in a different world, timewise and culturewise.

Subsequently discovered texts from around the same time as the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) paint a very different picture of the "ministry of Jesus" than is portrayed in the Bible.

For instance, the Gospel according to St. Thomas is viewed as promoting Gnosticism -- the belief that God actually dwells in each and every one of us, and that Christ's gift was more of being more in touch with that "divine spark" than most people. There is also a Gospel according to Mary Magdaline, perhaps the most interesting figure during the ministry of Jesus, because of her closeness to him. She was the first one to supposedly see him resurrected, and it is widely debated that she might have actually been Jesus's wife. Her gospel demonstrates a great deal more "spiritual insight" than the others.

It is also important to remember that the New Testament was essentially put together by the Roman Empire after Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity. The council that was called by Constantine looked over the texts available, and decided which ones would be included and which would be thrown out. In the end, more "authoritarian" books were included while those that tended more along the lines of "personal empowerment" were thrown out -- pretty predictable when considering the character of the Roman Empire.

There's also the missing years of Jesus's life in the Bible. Talk of his life between ages 12 and 30 is nonexistent. What did Jesus do during this time? What did he learn? What did he preach? There has been evidence of a figure fitting the description of Jesus during the proper time period being documented consorting with Buddhist and, I believe, Hindu monks during this time period. Imagine the uproar if it were determined that Jesus's ministry was actually an attempt to fuse the common threads of several major religions!

The Bible itself is full of contradictions. People who take it literally are doomed to run their minds in circles, or to simply embrace literally those parts that fit into their worldview while rejecting those that do not. When it comes down to it, Jesus's message was really quite simple. When asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied that there were really only two. First, love your God with all your heart. Second, love your neighbor as yourself. Now, if you throw the gnosticism of St. Thomas into this mix, this kind of pronouncement to love God, yourself, and your neighbor could all be the SAME THING.

In short, it's all quite complicated, and it's the realm of the religious nuts to break it down into literalist interpretations. The fact is, we never will know what the real "truth" is -- not in this lifetime, at least.

...people. His Almighty Power comes in the form of being able to determine from who is truly an evil person and from a truly good person. Just because people are homosexual does not mean they are evil people. I think "Christian" Fundamentalists use the Bible to answer the questions that are complex. You can't have a simple solution to a complex problem.

Last judgment Matthew 25....

The Sheep and the Goats

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

from New International Version

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+25&language=english&version=NIV

by nearly that many authors, written over a period of at least 700 years.

It would be spooky if it all had the same message.

Fundamentalists believe that everything in the Bible is literally true. Others do not, and in fact, the seminaries of the mainstream denominations have taught about the multiple authorship of the Bible since the mid nineteenth century.

you're asking religious people for a rational response?

... who have given a much more rational response than you. :shrug:

I thought faith was a mystery, not subject to rational explanation.

Don't be so touchy.

but it does seem like a rather circular endeavor

The Old Testament contains a (to a greater or lesser extent depending on who you ask) historical record of the "people of faith" including prophecies of a Messiah.

The New Testament contains a (to a greater or lesser extent depending on who you ask) historical record of Jesus (purported to that Messiah), followed by a (to a greater or lesser extent depending on who you ask) historical record of the actions and thoughts of his disciples, ending with a prophecy of "End Times".

At best, the Bible is "true in matters of faith" although it takes considerable study to derive the exact nature of this faith.

Check out http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

that's Old Testament. The God in the OT was pretty vengeful, Jesus put a more positive spin on things.

and that was the point i was making - turn the other cheek is difficult so lets find an eye for an eye - after all its in the bible so it must be allright

equals being Christian? I'm very religious and I am NOT a Christian, what, we don't exist?

but i was referring specifically to xtians because of the bible and jesus teachings

recommended by another DUer, Christ is Socialist. The website is:

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org

Lots of good information and explanation there. And lots of comebacks for arguing with rightwing "christians".

but I take my direction not my orders from the bible.

The main thing is Jesus, the rest ancillaries

My faith is based on the Good News of Jesus Christ. I believe that the whole message of the Bible has to be viewed as how does it fit with Christ. There are many influences that shape my faith: Christ, the Bible, the Church, my own right to interpret the scriptures in light of my belief in Christ (priesthood of the believer).

A fundamentalist would say that every word of the Bible is the literal word of God to be followed. But they pick and choose. They pick out isolated verses that may put women in a secondary position to men but ignore the dietary laws of the Old Testament.

Then post your psuedo guestion wrapped in judgemental rhetoric.

life of Jesus. This is what it means to me. Which is why I am a liberal. Way I read the Bible it's the most consistent with who Jesus was.

To Christians, the Old Testament serves mainly as prophecy, history, and allegory. It establishes that God did create the World, that he did annoint a chosen people, that he guided them, raised them when they obeyed him, and punished them when they did not. It also announces that there will come a Messiah who will bring a New Testament and a new pathway to salvation.

That is Christ. Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. He does change the path to God though he does not destroy the Old Law. The Sermon on the Mount is basically a new "interpretation" of the Old Law. In many ways, Christ is a lot harder on us than what the Old Law required:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' 22But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire. 23Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery.'
28But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

31 "Furthermore it has been said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

He is not a softie.

See my post below:
"NOT ONE WORD of the NT was written by anybody who ever met Jesus"

As for your specific question, Christ does not specifically condemn hypocrisy as you have defined it. He has made the path harder for us. "Eye for an eye" is a much easier law than "Turn the other cheek." The old law was do not respond more than is warranted; the new law is do not respond at all.

The Hypocrisy Christ spoke of was in those who made a big show of their worship, but were sinful in their heart. (Add whatever modern image you want to this). Again, the Old Law was much about actions (don't commit adultery). The New Law is much about intentions (don't even think about commiting adultery).

But there is no hypocrisy here.

Acts is an extremely important book as it shows how Christ's followers were chosen by him to put his words into action. It is about the building of his Church.

As for the rest of the New Testament, well, we believe that Paul was specifically chosen by Christ to spread the New Testament to the Gentiles. (It is Christ who blinds him on the road to Dasmacus). Therefore, Paul is acting as Christ's agent, so everything he says - more or less - has Christ's approval. There is a little wiggle room here.

But if you read his Epistles, he is mostly concerned with the actual operation of the Church. It's a laundry list of rules and regulations more than anything else - Christ never got into details such as clothing. And it's done in response to questions from the churches. In layman's terms, Paul is Christ's advice columnist.

As for Revelation. . . most of us steer clear of Revelation. It's the most controversial book in the Bible and it's one that is still rather openly debated as to whether it belongs or not. In fact, no one is really sure who wrote the thing.

so all you need are Jesus' teachings. You can ignore the OT.

Christ said the exact opposite.

And his real name, in his own Aramaic language, was Yeshua, not Jesus. Jesus is the Greek. Nor was his last name Christ. Christ is also a Greek word meaning revolutionary leader or (in Hebrew) Messiah. Why these Greek names? Because the come from St. Paul who is the main focus of a large part of the NT. Paul never met Jesus except in a dream.

The other gospels were written by anonymous authors DECADES AFTER Yeshua was crucified. Not a single gospel writer ever knew Jesus. They were written by anonymous authors and given the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in about 150 AD.

These gospel writers had several specific agendas. One was to make Jesus appear to be the fullfillment of "predictions" made in the OT. Until that time, the word "Prophet" meant social critic. The Prophets of the OT were speaking to matters in their own time, they were not predicting anything except the eventual doom of their own people if they did not reform.

But as a result of gospel mythology, the word "Prophet" has come to mean one who predicts the future.

These are facts. They are agreed upon by nearly all biblical scholars of all denominations. But they are not generally known because clergy the world over a terrified of revealing the truth to the faithful.

I don't like it when people tell me these things as if it's a shock to me.

"Gasp! You mean that Jesus didn't have a secretary?!?!?"

"You mean that he did not speak English?!?!?!"

"You mean that there was a political struggle to determine what books would apear in the Bible?!?!?!?"

Despite beliefs to the contrary, most Christians are not slack-jawed idiots or sheep taking orders from some guy in a nice suit. We know these things. And we have to consider them in our relationship with the Word.

What most of us have decided is despite the politics behind the words, the words themselves carry a meaning that shines through the centuries. There is a message there that has survived two centuries of insanity.

Of course, we don't agree on what that meaning is all the time. I've been in the middle of elaborate debates over whether we should use the NIV or AS translations of the Bible.

And trust me. You have never been bored until you've had an argument over the proper way to baptize someone. You have to be sophisticated to have disputes this banal.

Most Christians believe the New Testament is "The Word of God." It's not. It's a bunch of writings by people who had received whisper-down-the-lane mythology about some guy who lived decades earlier.

Thus the references to what Jesus "said" are utterly irrelevant. His specific words are wholly lost. So it makes no sense to parse the bible for meaning.

What does make sense is to understand what kind of man Jesus was, and what he stood for and what his general message was. Yet THAT is what gets lost in all the nonesense about how he "suffered so much for our sins" and performed miracles and called for us to eat his body and drink his blood.

The fact is nearly all Christians believe to their core that the gospels were written by the Apostles. You know the do. It is a fiction deliberately maintained by all of Christendom. If people knew the real truth, they would treat the mythology vastly differently. They would recognize that the passion stories, for example, are pure mythology mixed with the rampant anti-Jewish prejudice that prevailed in the period 70-100 AD when they were written.