liberal vs. literal Christian

Thomas said:
I'm wondering ...

I think I am safe in saying that everyone here knows me as a pretty firm Catholic, and if you don't know me, then I think others here will vouch for me in that regard ... but what if I was to declare myself not a Catholic at all, but a liberal Buddhist?

The Buddha said:
"This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering."
(Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31)

I can agree to that. I can say that everything Buddha wrote was largely correct, with a few provisions, notably that he was wrong regarding the precise nature of reincarnation, and of God - but that the error is because Buddhism has misunderstood and distorted the meaning of his words to suit its own doctrinal ends. His words weren't written down for 400 years, so no amount of invention has found its way into the texts. What's left is a dead-letter populist understanding of what was an esoteric discourse.
Click to expand...
They weren't written down but they were chanted by groups of monks, and memorised like poetic sagas in Europe.

The Buddha said:
"So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit"
(Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31)

I can agree to that, too. Not everyone is capable of 'direct knowledge' or gnosis, preferring to be told rather than think for themselves, but I have searched around, and gleaned knowledge of the 'more' than the average orthodox Buddhist, but when I tell them I understand their faith better than they do, it annoys them but, as Kurt Vonnegut is won't to say, "so it goes", I'm more of a Buddhist than they are, obviously.
Click to expand...
The Buddha did not say 'few are able' but 'they bring no benefit'. This is the same point as made with the man pierced by an arrow and asking what wood it was made from etc: so is the monk who asks the nature of the self and the world. By pursuing 'gnosis' you do not understand their religion better than them, and are certainly not 'more of a Buddhist'. BTW, what do you mean by 'orthodox Buddhist': Theravada or Mahayana? Monk or lay?

Buddha, Dharma, Sangha? Well, I believe in what Buddha said, in broad outline, I mean, in an abstract sense, in principle he hasn't said anything different from anyone else, I mean, we all know life's a bitch, and then you die, right?
Click to expand...
No, some don't realise and some disagree. And the Buddha went futher than the first noble truth: he saw the reason for the suffering, how it can be avoided and prescribed a cure.
 
Hi Obvious Child -

No problems, as I am not a Buddhist of any persuasion - I made an ironical post to highlight a certain incongruity of such a position, that's all.

If I were a liberal Buddhist of course, I would suggest you are being overly literal and dogmatic, if not narrow-minded. I mean, being liberal means I can make what I like of what I like, doesn't it? Buddha was just a guy who realised it's better to chill out then get steamed up, that all. I mean, what did he do, but sit under a tree and smile? Way cool. I'll have some of that!

Thomas - still in ironic mode
 
To me it seems that if you are asking the question whether the events of the Bible are historically literal-factual you are barking up the wrong tree. I like the Jesus Seminar results and other Bible scholarsihp because I find it very interesting, but it does not determine my theology for me. I believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ based upon faith, not upon fact.

So, I like Marcus Borg--does that make me a heretic?

lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
To me it seems that if you are asking the question whether the events of the Bible are historically literal-factual you are barking up the wrong tree. I like the Jesus Seminar results and other Bible scholarsihp because I find it very interesting, but it does not determine my theology for me. I believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ based upon faith, not upon fact.

So, I like Marcus Borg--does that make me a heretic?

lunamoth
Click to expand...

LOL no, just open minded...;)
 
Obvious Child said:
They weren't written down but they were chanted by groups of monks, and memorised like poetic sagas in Europe.

The Buddha did not say 'few are able' but 'they bring no benefit'. This is the same point as made with the man pierced by an arrow and asking what wood it was made from etc: so is the monk who asks the nature of the self and the world. By pursuing 'gnosis' you do not understand their religion better than them, and are certainly not 'more of a Buddhist'. BTW, what do you mean by 'orthodox Buddhist': Theravada or Mahayana? Monk or lay?

No, some don't realise and some disagree. And the Buddha went futher than the first noble truth: he saw the reason for the suffering, how it can be avoided and prescribed a cure.
Click to expand...

is this a literal buddha or a liberal buddha?

is this a literal first noble truth or a liberal first noble truth?
 
Käthe said:
Actually, I have a question, and I'm guessing that this is the correct forum in which to raise it.

Do the various Churches have differences on what is called by some "the Arian heresy"? Or Origen’s assertion that there are degrees of divinity?
Click to expand...

that depends on if it is a literal heresy of divinity or a liberal heresy.
 
Oh Lord, Bandit ... what have we started?!

The Gospel reading for today in the Catholic calendar is the cleansing of the Temple, when Christ took the whip to the money-changers, etc.

Not very liberal there, then.

Now, of course, there are those who will say he didn't literally throw the traders and dealers out of the temple, but signifies the ascetic process of self mortification and refinement.

But I would counter the two are the same: "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" and that this order of liberalism does precisely that - its marketing the Doctrines of Tradition in such a way as to accept this, reject that. Let's face it, there was nothing 'liberal' about Christ - he was quite dogmatic and not open to negotiation nor argument ("get thee behind me, satan!")

"... many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all [men], And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."
John 2:223-25

This is a curious ending to the chapter ... I think these were the liberals of his day, they saw, and they believed what they wanted to believe ...

So who does Jesus commit himself to?

Thomas
 
lunamoth said:
So, I like Marcus Borg--does that make me a heretic?

lunamoth
Click to expand...

that depends on your view of heretic & if it is liberal or literal. since i dont use that word in what others believe i cant say.

here is some of what Marcus teaches. i dont know if this is liberal or literal but i think most of it is accurate. it appears they have both 'literally & liberally' tossed about 80% of the NT scriptures.

  • Their claims are based on the 18% of Jesus’ sayings they retain. Among them:
  • “Jesus did not ask us to believe that his death was a blood sacrifice, that he was going to die for our sins.”
  • “Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was the messiah. He certainly never suggested that he was the second person of the trinity. In fact, he rarely referred to himself at all.”
  • “Jesus did not call upon people to repent, or fast, or observe the Sabbath.
  • “Jesus did not ask us to believe that he would be raised from the dead.”
  • “Jesus did not ask us to believe that he was born of a virgin.”
  • “Jesus did not regard scripture as infallible or even inspired.”
  • That the Lord’s Prayer was unsaid by our Lord.
  • That Jesus never said that He would return.
  • “[R]ather than being the exclusive revelation of God, [Jesus] is one of many mediators of the sacred.”
  • The Seminar claims that they intended to counter the “religious establishment” and televangelists.
  • But the Seminar has challenged the main line churches at their very boundaries of identity: the Creeds and the canonical Scriptures.
  • Thus, to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus was not in his lifetime “of one Being with the Father;” nor, according to Borg, the “Messiah or …the Son of God in some special sense”.
  • Rather, Jesus was a mere peasant sage, spirit person and movement founder.
 
Thomas said:
Oh Lord, Bandit ... what have we started?!

The Gospel reading for today in the Catholic calendar is the cleansing of the Temple, when Christ took the whip to the money-changers, etc.

Not very liberal there, then.

Now, of course, there are those who will say he didn't literally throw the traders and dealers out of the temple, but signifies the ascetic process of self mortification and refinement.

But I would counter the two are the same: "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise" and that this order of liberalism does precisely that - its marketing the Doctrines of Tradition in such a way as to accept this, reject that. Let's face it, there was nothing 'liberal' about Christ - he was quite dogmatic and not open to negotiation nor argument ("get thee behind me, satan!")

"... many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all [men], And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."
John 2:223-25

This is a curious ending to the chapter ... I think these were the liberals of his day, they saw, and they believed what they wanted to believe ...

So who does Jesus commit himself to?

Thomas
Click to expand...

interesting Thomas, & i understand what you are saying & we are in total agreement:) .
it was blaspheming the Holy Ghost & the power to deliver & heal.

as i mentioned earlier, there are those who gather beliefs & there are those who set out to scatter what other people believe & to try & shake their faith.

this thread is only going to divide christians more. why it is being allowed shows me a very strange motive.

a house against itself cannot stand.

we shall see soon how well this type of thinking goes over in the other religions presented here. there is no reason for Christians to keep taking the blunt of all this.
this post is literal.

peace to you Thomas & hold on to that which was first delivered.:)
 
Bandit said:
that depends on if it is a literal heresy of divinity or a liberal heresy.
Click to expand...
This is becoming a bit tiring.

I'll move my questions to a new topic, and hope that the people who respond do so seriously.
 
Käthe said:
This is becoming a bit tiring.

I'll move my questions to a new topic, and hope that the people who respond do so seriously.
Click to expand...

i agree. it has become very tiring for me also & for the other christians because it is turning our faith into a big laughing joke.

i dont mean that toward you & your questions, because i think you are being sincere/serious here.

i am trying to make a point & i see that others are seeing how tiring it is.

please post & ask.
 
Can we tone down the sardonic wit please? Now that the thread is more or less back in balance, people are trying to ask serious questions, and present thoughtful views.

Besides, the only kind of humor I know of that Jesus had, was gentle.

Thank you.

v/r

Quahom
 
as for me,
i can assure everyone that i am not being funny, witty, humorous or sarcastic
i am being very serious & thoughtful

if i ask is it liberal or literal- i am being serious in my question
every question, answer & info i provide in the last 24 hours here is serious.

i have made several serious posts in this thread
 
here is some of what Marcus teaches. i dont know if this is liberal or literal but i think most of it is accurate.
Click to expand...
And you correctly pointed out above the pitfalls of literalism. The sword does cut both ways. So, which should I choose? Your literalism or Borg's literalism? Well, I choose neither.

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
it appears they have both 'literally & liberally' tossed about 80% of the NT scriptures.
Click to expand...
That's not how I see it at all. How Borg struggles with applying his faith to his life is his. How I struggle with applying my faith to my life is mine.

I do believe that the NT is 100% literal in this sense: 2000 years ago God visited us and once again walked among us. Whether He knew this of Himself at the time I do not know. People listened to his teachings, believed in His message, and patterned their lives and worship after Him. His teachings were the seeds, but hearts of humans are hard. What happened on the cross plows our hearts and makes them fertile ground for the seeds. He came to teach us about love but if this was all then he would not have been the Christ, merely a wise teacher. What happened on the cross and three days later was Real, whether or not it happened exactly as described in the conflicting reports of the Gospels.

The gospels record what the earliest believers knew about Christ and what they knew of his teachings. Most important, they testify that Christ lived, was crucified, and was physically resurrected. They testify that He is God, the Son of God, and that the Holy Spirit was given to us. I could go on, but I don't think I need to. Thus, every prayer, every parable, every miracle and every event, every word of the NT is true. All the Biblical scholarship in the world can't change this.

I think that it has been the practice of sola scriptura, taking the Bible out of the context of the traditions and knowledge of the mother Church (catholocism), that has created this warped idea about literalism and truth in the Bible.

lunamoth
 
"There is a common assumption of our contemporary culture that judgments are the result of arbitrary choice. There is often an assumption that we can choose our moral values or life style; that we choose our opinions about religion or science; that we choose our cultural beliefs and values. Serious arguments will break down when one party simply asserts, 'well, that is my culture,' or 'if that makes you happy so be it.' If arbitrary choice is the basis for judgment, then there is little point in arguing. Arguing presumes there is a rational basis for conclusions. If that is the case then, what is true for me must be true for you. But if arbitrary choice is operating there is no basis for excluding one of contradictory alternatives; different views might indeed be incommensurable, having no common origin and no common basis for discussion."
From Cronin's 'Foundations of Philosophy'
http://www.lonergan.org/Online_Books/cronin/7.htm
 
I think I owe Quahom an apology for acting like an ass.

I sincerely apologize for acting like an ass.

I've had a busy weekend. There's a quote from Bishop Spong that goes directly to the heart of this topic. I'll have to transcribe it, but I'll try to do that tomorrow. Gotta go to bed, gotta work early tomorrow.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top