Whose a Christian now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

goliah

Guest
I don't mean this to be provocative, but the new catholic pope may have his hands full with the first real heresy of the modern world! Incredibly, someone has thrown up a challenge to all mono-theism, but particularly Christianity, with an entirely new interpretation of the faith and morality taught by Christ? Has anyone else come across the Gospel of the Resurrection, also called the Final Freedoms which has been published from a number of sites on the web? WOW. Very heavy stuff. Obviously intended to confront 'Christian' tradition with a teaching that meets all the criteria of our enlightenment conception of empirical testable knowledge. This is going to put the noses of both science and religion way out of joint. Things could get very interesting! I would love to discuss this material with anyone else who has come across it. Or if anyone is interested, I can post one of the links to this material on this discussion board.
 
The link is [link removed by I, Brian]
The image that comes up on screen first lasts for 15 seconds before moving on to the material I have mentioned in my first posting. I am still studing the material I downloaded. But if the site is provocative, wait until you read the teaching! All I can say for the moment is that it is a teaching on the nature of marriage. And it resolves, at least on paper, the most intractable issues of human sexuality that exisit today. At first I thought this was a hoax, but the material is just too real. I think the goalposts of history have been moved?
 
I'll read almost anything, so I'll at least skim through it. But looking at the website I already have problems with it, and it's not necessarily what traditional/conservative "Christians" would consider problematic. For one, the business about men being the only ones with original sin and thus being the leaders of this revolution of thought or whatever. Um, yeah. OK. Whether or not you believe in original sin, that doesn't seem to make any sense. Furthermore, since I'm a woman, I guess I can just bypass this whole process and just wait for the men to get with the program? No offense, but that isn't a strong start for me. I don't wait for men to "belay" me up after them. I'm a child of God too and I'll take care of my own spirituality, thanks.
 
Well, I'll give a quick review of the first 50 pages I just skimmed. Granted, I did not read them thoroughly, but I'm a pretty decent "skimmer" due to grad school. ;)

This whole synthesis is interesting, in terms of its ingenuity, but completely resonates as "false" to me. And I'm so liberal most people wouldn't consider me in the religion of Christianity.

In the first fifty pages it basically says that the only way to have spiritual union with God is to have spiritual union in a marriage. So if you're single, tough luck for you. You don't get to become spiritually aware or know God. Hurry up and go sign up for the nearest dating service. Actually, I was kind of surprised it didn't have an add for one, considering the advertisement it was for getting married.

In addition, women have no covenant with God. So, we don't have the responsibility for original sin, but we also are unable to commune with God without a husband. Hmm... I guess all children can't know God until they're married. Ooookayyy...

Now, I am married and have found many spiritual blessings in my marriage. It has deepened my relationship with God. But so have my relationships with lots of people, like the rest of my family. And I knew God long before I knew my husband.

Granted, I haven't read all 370 pages, but I doubt the next 220 are going to redeem this document for me. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven "belonged to little children such as these." How could this be the case if they had to grow up and get married before finding spiritual truth? Jesus was a pretty outspoken guy, and it seems to me that if he wanted everyone to get married and that this was an absolute necessity for spiritual union with God (and, as the authors say, that celibacy is the most horrible thing you can do), that he would have said so a little more plainly than needing 370 pages to put it together. After all, he was pretty clear about being peaceful, loving, humble, etc., right?

Finally, perhaps somewhere in pages 200-300 it starts getting to how everyone being in a spiritually united marriage yields the answers to all our problems in the world today, but it seems unlikely. How does happy marriages result in the end of environmental degradation? People just magically start consuming less and recycling and driving energy-efficient vehicles? How does it end world hunger? I guess I can see how if everybody was super happy in their marriage, it would end war (maybe they'd be too preoccupied ;) ), but we have a lot more problems than just social ones.

Honestly, I don't think this is going to cause the pope to be upset much. The interpretations of scripture are so metaphoric that fundamentalists and conservatives will cringe and call it false doctrine. And the way it excludes women and single people from the covenant of God will eliminate most of the liberals and mystics.
 
I hope your get through the entire manuscript. It only gets better. My wife and I have already decided to test the claims of this teaching. The potential appears to far outweigh any other considerations. What particularly caught us was how -faith- was described in the chapter called 'perfect faith'. I'll be interested in your comments after you get a little further into the material. I would suggest careful reading instead of scanning.
 
I've read the first 20 pages and I find it to be quite interesting, really.

I thought the covenent that God made with Adam was extended to his offspring. As I understand it, the woman is the offspring of the man being that God made woman from Adam's rib.
 
Furthermore, since I'm a woman, I guess I can just bypass this whole process and just wait for the men to get with the program? No offense, but that isn't a strong start for me. I don't wait for men to "belay" me up after them. I'm a child of God too and I'll take care of my own spirituality, thanks.[/QUOTE]

What if by a new act of faith, a change in thought and conduct, you could end rape and all sexual abuse against your gender and children? All domestic violence, end any need of contraception and abortion and a lot more besides? This is what is on offer at this site, if true, it has as much to offer women as it does men! That is why my wife/partner and I are going to test it out!
 
I'd love an end to all that.

But I think of myself first as a soul, not as woman. My primary concern is my relationship with God, and I find a doctrine that thinks I need a man for this offensive. Honestly, if this works for you and your wife, great.

I truly do believe that if all people turned toward God and fixed their eyes on Him, there would be an end to our earthly suffering that we cause one another. This is, in fact, a basic aspect of my belief system- that the kingdom of heaven is within us. I just don't think marriage is the sole place for it. I think people who want to be celibate should remain so, and I don't think they are excluded from a relationship with God for doing so. I don't think the marital relationship is the only one in which God is manifest. My own experience belies this, as I began experiencing God as a young child.

As I said, the document is certainly interesting and creative, but I just don't think that God excludes people from a relationship with him based on marital status. And as I said, there is no direct injunction from Jesus that states this plan. In addition, knowing a bit about neo-Paganism and the Wiccan idea of union of Goddess and God, man and woman, being the ultimate in spiritual union with the Divine, this sounds remarkably like a Christianized version of this belief. That actually isn't inherently a problem for me, but people should be aware that this isn't the only doctrine out there proposing the same basic ideas.

If I have the time, I'll read a bit more in depth, but I did read the section on "Perfect Faith" fairly thoroughly already. This just doesn't resonate with me at all; it's like reading the Course in Miracles (not that they are similar, but rather I got the same feeling from them). I have a dozen or so books on the Bible currently waiting for my attention that I just feel would be more useful.

I think the thing that really just doesn't "do" anything for me is any time a doctrine says it is THE WAY to Jesus, God, and the Kingdom of Heaven, and no others are valid. There are many different varieties of this, and obviously they can't all be right. Any time a doctrine automatically excludes a bunch of folks (like this one excludes celibate and single people), I begin to worry.
 
path_of_one said:
I think the thing that really just doesn't "do" anything for me is any time a doctrine says it is THE WAY to Jesus, God, and the Kingdom of Heaven, and no others are valid. There are many different varieties of this, and obviously they can't all be right. Any time a doctrine automatically excludes a bunch of folks (like this one excludes celibate and single people), I begin to worry.
Click to expand...
I agree with path_of_one here. The problem, as I see it, with any complex doctrine or manifesto (as this one seems to be, clocking in at 300+ pages, if I remember correctly) that claims to be the way to perfecting all of the big and little imperfections in our complex, profanely beautiful, simultaneously imperfect and perfect world, is that it will invariably fall short of that goal.

Anyhow, I haven't read past page three, and I skimmed page one. :)
 
If anyone wishes to bring views to discussion, this is a discussion forum, and ideas and opinions expressed can be discussed. Otherwise the idea of an interfaith discussion forum is somewhat defeated if we're simply referred to another website to read through reams of pages on someone's personal views.

Otherwise it's hard not to see this thread as simply self-promotional for another website - so thread closed and moving on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top