What does it MEAN to be a Christian?

[flowperson]

China Cat:

A brilliant and meaningful post, IMHO.

flow....

 

[lunamoth]

I just want to point out, again, that Christian is also an ethnicity. Anyone who celebrates Christmas is ethnically Christian. What I find interesting is all the hubbub over drawing lines around who or what is Christian. It's so goofy, shallow, and self serving, and so obviously masks a deep sense of insecurity. I don't understand why people have such a keen interest in banging that drum all day.

Here we are on the Liberal Christianity board, which has been excommunicated from the mainstream (whatever that is) Christianity board. I was watching the Eyes on the Prize series on PBS tonight. It's about the civil rights movement in the 1960's. And I'm thinking about the white Christian ministers, priests, and nuns who came down to the south and risked their lives to help blacks realize their right to vote. That's liberal Christianity! That's the kind of stuff that's too uncomfortable for the conservatives to accept. And, as MLK said, it's the apathy of otherwise good people that allows injustice to continue.

The struggle isn't over, but we also have new issues to face today, and liberal denominations, like the Episcopal church, are standing up to be counted just like those white people who came down to march in Selma. And all the while those who are more comfortable protecting the status quo, and those whose apathy and lack of courage and moral fortitude tacitly support them, continue to insist that those who are progressive in thier doctrinal and social point of view should be fenced out of thier own religion. This is the impetus behind all the squabbling over who or what Christianity is. That's why it's so important to construct a definition of Christianity that disenfrachises, and moves to a safe distance people who might disrupt the status quo.

Chris

Hi Chris, Excellent post. I'm not really sure we can call Christianity an ethnicity based upon the secularization of Christmas, but whatever floats your boat. I do agree however that arguing over the title Christian is not only a humongous waste of time but also distracts from and often goes against our commandment to love each other.

My post was not in defense of the title "Christian," but in reponse to the idea of someone complaining that Christianity has no meaning or distinction after gutting the main beliefs of traditional Christianity. Perhaps I read it wrong above, but it struck me as someone killing the lion then looking at the corpse and complaining: who could ever consider this dead beast beautiful and majestic? Sorry, I was just shooting form the hip there. That's what you respect, right?

I don't know where to put myself in the spectrum of Christianity these days and I don't know if I ever will. It certainly would be nice to be certain, but I have a healthy distrust of certitutde. I don't know. I don't think we can read the Bible on our own and come up with some 'plain' answers. You've suggested in the past that the Bible is an easy book to understand if one takes the time to read it. I'm not so sure about that. I do think, however, that I can come up with some living Christian principles, such as love each other, take care of widows and orphans.

I'm living in the tension Chris.

Christianity is, foremost, for the disenfranchised. If it's not, then Christianity surely is dead.

luna

 

[lunamoth]

What does it mean to be a Christian? To me this moment it means groping in the dark trusting in this one crazy flashlight called Love.

luna

 

[Thomas]

Andrew -

"If one Christian alone can constitute the vessel for Christ's Mission, then it should be very easy indeed to define what it is that MAKES this wo/man that vessel!"

By any rule of logic, yes.

And, should I fail to find the crucifix, cross or other emblematic proof dangling from this person's neck to indicate his or her allegiance ... how is it, that this person is Christian?

Actually Andrew, I'm not sure if I'm amazed by the naivety of that comment, or offended by its socio-political implication ...

Either way, as I'm sure this is not what you intended, and knowing your penchant for diversity of sources, I shall paraphrase the film "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre":
Humphrey Bogart: "If you're Christians, show us your badges!"
Alfonso Bedoya: "Badges? We doan need no badges! Ah doan have to show you any steenkin' badges!"

Whatever way you measure it - Christianity is a religion of the heart, but not of the heart worn upon the sleeve, or round the neck, or anywhere else.

If s/he simply says "I believe," then is there ANYthing - which you in feel that we can string along behind these words that will succinctly address the matter at hand?

Again logically, yes. The real question is whether you'll accept the answer, or continually try and subvert it?

And if so, what if that person suddenly converts? What is s/he declares that faith in Jesus Christ has been lost, and explicity takes the vows of the Buddhist laity? Church wipes, eh?

Then, logically, s/he ceases to be a Christian ...

Ahhh, and what if s/he does NOT declare a loss of faith in Christ, yet takes these Buddhist lay vows ANYWAY!?! Then what!

Then s/he doesn't know what s/he believes in, obviously.

Not as sharp as I once was, when it comes to logic ...

Thy own lips have said it.

This thread is interesting to me for several reasons...

This thread is waning in interest for me, because whatever argument is offered you simply try to circumvent it.

Only one of them is the idea that I might actually learn - ontologically speaking - the answer to the question at hand.

I don't think so, you seem so focussed on the superficial and the exoteric.

Another reason, is that I think it will necessarily involve, at some point, sooner or later, even if it kills us trying .... a discussion of the virtues, qualities of character and otherwise defining traits of the Christian!

There you go again - superficialities and externals - 'virtue' 'qualities of character' etc., flow from the heart/will ...

This is what matters to me, and in the last analysis, from a practical point of view, to the rest of the planet ...
So now you speak for the entire planet?

But if it all falls back to "I believe!" - then I suppose we could stop discussion dead, right here!

It would seem so. Pity really, because that's precisely the point on which everything really turns.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

On a more serious note...

Originally Posted by Thomas
Not quite - He is the incarnate Son - we are children by adoption - there is a difference. We are not the Trinity.

As an esotericist, and esoteric Christian, this is not quite what I believe. In fact, we are the Trinity! This could be approached from dozens of angles, but in simplest terms, I maintain (on no less than Scriptural Authority!) that in our highest Essence (sic), we are literally a Spark of the Divine Logos. This means that our Identity is not different or other than God the Father, 1st Aspect.

Well, whatever you consider yourself to be, your philosophy and your esoterism is profoundly flawed.You are assuming 'you' and the 'spark' are one, when a careful reading of the text will reveal that Christ is the life, and the light of men, which puts man in a subsistent, and not an equivalent, relation to Christ. It is on this single issue that I will face you down every time. According to your esoterism you claim not simply to possess Christ as your own, but moreover you possess Christ as yourself.
Which is dangerously and seductively close to the serpent's argument.

Working from the Prologue to the Gospel of St John, by your assumption, if you are the Trinity then:
"In the beginning was taijasi: and taijasi was with God: and taijasi was God.
The same was in the beginning with God."
John 1:1-2

You see?

"All things were made by taijasi: and without taijasi was made nothing that was made."

and so on ... nonsense ...

+++

On a philosophical note, esoterisms aside:

If God and man are synonymous, then God is subject to change, to addition and subtraction, according to the fluctuating population of the human race - which is not the God of the Bible.

In short, the Divine Logos is not dependent upon man for its Essence or Existence, whereas man is dependent upon the Divine Logos for his:

So again, your logic is as faulty as your reading of Scripture, and as you fancy yourself an esoterist I would suggest a reading of Colossians as a good corrective:
"For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth,
All things were created by him and in him.
And he is before all: and by him all things consist."
Colossians 1:16-17

Op perhaps Ephesians:
"As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.
Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will:
Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us, in his beloved son.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his, grace,
Which hath superabounded in us, in all wisdom and prudence,
That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him,
In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him."

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaste Thomas,

It is my understanding that over on the Christianity board I must tiptoe and you can inform Andrew or I that we cannot achieve the understanding and knowing of Oneness, I and the father are one...that Jesus did in our lifetime.

Hence the development of a place where we can discuss such grand possiblities. That not only Andrew or I, but you Thomas, and mee, and Ruby Sera, and Shadowman, and Terrence et al...can do all those things and greater as our elder BROTHER went on to OUR Father.

Somewhere along the line I'm assuming you don't say Our adopted Father....of course I could be mistaken.

Yes it is my understanding that over here inside the walls of this garden we are allowed to discuss our eachness of the allness, that we are the created and creator, that we have a stake in this thing called life and impact our world directly.

You may have another understanding, and that to is acceptable, but open for discussion.

 

[Thomas]

Fair point...

Pax,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Let me offer this:

"God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: "We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us".

From the Encyclical Letter 'Deus caritas Est'
Delivered by Pope Benedict XVI
St Peters, Rome, 25.12.2005

 

[taijasi]

Why I am taijasi/a


From the Encyclopedic Theosphical Glossary online:

Taijasa (Sanskrit) [from tejas light] Radiant, flaming, bright; sometimes the higher parts of a human being, such as the manasa-rupa, are designated as taijasa. A star is called taijasi, the feminine form.​

In Gnostic or Theosophical fashion, the vehicle for the Light, is (also) usually spoken of as feminine (negative) relative to the masculine (or positive) source. Taijasa-vahan, might therefore be appropriate, as I seek, or aspire to embody the Greater Light which illumines my lesser being.

That Light I know, and refer to as, the Soul. It is the Christ within. A tiny ray of that light - only a portion, and the least portion at that - can be credited with providing me all that I know of as my `self.' The term antahkarana, or antas-karana figures in, as does the principle of ahamkara, the "I-maker." Due to ahamkara/ahankar, "I" seem to exist as an individual, separate, isolated person. In truth, this is not the case.

There once was one who said, "Though,
It seems that I know that I know,
What I would like to see,
Is the 'I' that knows 'me',
When I know that I know that I know!

​

The Christ Light (and Love) slumbers within every human heart. It is God's undying, abiding GIFT to us ... if we wish to invoke Grace in our understanding. Gratitude, of course, is always appropriate. The Lotus conceals the Jewel. The Christ self, as some put it, enfolds a yet subtler Spark ... of Living, Electric (Cosmic) FIRE - and THAT is our Consuming Lord.

But these Principles are not mine to gamble, or while away, use or dispose of at my choosing. They are the true GROUND of my being, as Yggdrasil, and as the Hanged Man. The ground, this planet, terra firma? It is the clouds, it is denser materially, but less substantial spiritually. It is "real," but it is transitory. Even Nirvana will pass away, but the Spark? That endures.

Like the visible manifestations that appear and disappear in the candle (sparks), our Monadic selves (see Liebniz) exist "only in the wink of an eye." The Flame itself, is undying. It only appears to fade out, relative to the external world. From our point of view, it is ignited and dissolved. But whence the flame, and whither?


From the Stanzas of Dzyan (which gives us Zen), we learn about the states of Being PRIOR to Creation - as indicated in Genesis:

Alone, the One Form of Existence stretched boundless, infinite, causeless, in Dreamless Sleep, and Life pulsated unconscious in Universal "Space", throughout that All-Presence which is sensed by the Opened Eye of Dangma. But where was Dangma when the Alaya of the Universa was in Paramartha, and the Great Wheel was Anupadaka?​

Work with the Sanskrit, and it becomes apparent that this is not exoteric or conventional Christianity ... nor is it a Cosmology borrowed from the Asian Teachings, or garnished for new presentation. The Stanzas predate all other religious texts on the planet, along with many records which do not even as yet have a material counterpart - existing subtly, though permanently. God's `Book of Remembrance,' the Akash - and not the distorted reflection in the astral light - preserves the records of Humanity's origin, faithfully.
If our translations are imperfect to date, and appeal a good deal to the Eastern Wisdom, then perhaps we should rail against God for revealing something of His Majesty and His Innermost Being to these people, before their immigration to the rest of the globe, in this most recent world cycle. Let's not fuss at the Aryan Indians for being slow to disseminate the Wisdom.

If anything, it is understandable that a certain criticism enter in ... since many of the "chosen" could not preserve the Wisdom, could not follow the strict requirements set forth by Manu (Noah, Xisuthrus, Deucalion), and could not provide the seed or vehicle for the newer portions of the Human Family. If anything, criticize me for my failings, in this lastest turn of the cyclical spiral, to likewise embody the Planetary Soul - the Buddhi, the Christ, the true SELF of all.

But do please, try not to pick apart Christ's own Teachings, simply because the presentation does not suit. If by "subversion" you mean the undying effort to share something of the Ancient Wisdom with fellow seekers, aspirants and disciples ... then yes, Thomas, I do seek to substitute - for AN EMPTY VESSEL - one that is at least HALF full, of the Water of the New Era.

[I do not mean that the Catholic Church it an empty vessel entirely. The baby must remain, as we drain the dirty bathwater. OTHER vessels there are, however, some equally pure, and equally worthy, and equally authoritative, in the very least. The last few posts, from luna, Chris and wil, all testify to this. Increasingly, I do feel that the Episcopal Church is setting not simply a precedent, but the very example Christ is working toward, re the Christian Churches.]

That Water in the Aquarian Vessel is the same Love as Christ taught and shared at the Dawn of the last Zodaical cycle, but the times, they are a changin'. Pisces is waning. Aquarius, since 1945, is upon us. THIS IS the Age of Aquarius - astronomically, factually, scientifically speaking. The Catholic Church, OF ALL the Churches, should KNOW this - such have been her investigations into the Heavens, and questionings into the Order of things ... the cycles, and the dates.


But we CANNOT put New wine in Old vessels. An anecdote from Christ's encounters with the Sanhedrin, not found among the oft-thumped sources:

A Member of Cinedrion asked Christ:
“Would you come to us if we should ask you?”
Christ answered:
“Better would I go to the cemetery for there is no lie.”
A member of Cinedrion asked Christ, “Why dost thou not acknowledge us if even Thy father was married by one of our members?”
“Wait until your house crumbles; then shall We come.”
“Wherefore shalt thou come—to destroy or to erect?”
“Neither for destruction nor erection but for purification. Because I shall not return to the old hearth.”
“How then, not to respect your forefathers!”
“New cups are given for the feast. Respecting a grandfather, one need not drink out of his cup.”

​

Namaskar,

andrew

 

[Quahom1]

Namaste Thomas,

It is my understanding that over on the Christianity board I must tiptoe and you can inform Andrew or I that we cannot achieve the understanding and knowing of Oneness, I and the father are one...that Jesus did in our lifetime.

Hence the development of a place where we can discuss such grand possiblities. That not only Andrew or I, but you Thomas, and mee, and Ruby Sera, and Shadowman, and Terrence et al...can do all those things and greater as our elder BROTHER went on to OUR Father.

Somewhere along the line I'm assuming you don't say Our adopted Father....of course I could be mistaken.

Yes it is my understanding that over here inside the walls of this garden we are allowed to discuss our eachness of the allness, that we are the created and creator, that we have a stake in this thing called life and impact our world directly.

You may have another understanding, and that to is acceptable, but open for discussion.

One can consider the "other" board from one of two perspectives Wil.

Never let a bull run through a china shop, or

Never pit a speed boat against a loggerhead.

Either way, the aggressor loses.

 

[taijasi]

One can consider the "other" board from one of two perspectives Wil.

Never let a bull run through a china shop, or

Never pit a speed boat against a loggerhead.

Either way, the aggressor loses.

And yet ... if competition is the name of the game, then I'd just as soon play a video game. Or see who can knit faster (I wouldn't know where to begin!). Either way, it's a safe bet I'll lose!

If debate is all we're after, then could we take a lesson from the Tibetan Buddhist monks, who at least get lively with it, and do it all in good spirit, but do so only to test each other's wits, and to keep sharp the Dharma?

Speaking of sharp, I'll tell you what it means to be a Christian. Every so often I remember that wonderful screen production of Somerset Maugham's Razor's Edge. The old version is very moving. Bill Murray's is okay, yet it definitely still gets the point across.

To me, there is a good example of one who demonstrates Christianity - more and more, as the movie evolves. Was he perfect? Not by a long shot. He simply applied himself, diligently.

I remember bringing it up with Bandit, some time back, relative to plot, and other literary devices. It was a good thread.

taijasi

 

[Quahom1]

And yet ... if competition is the name of the game, then I'd just as soon play a video game. Or see who can knit faster (I wouldn't know where to begin!). Either way, it's a safe bet I'll lose!

If debate is all we're after, then could we take a lesson from the Tibetan Buddhist monks, who at least get lively with it, and do it all in good spirit, but do so only to test each other's wits, and to keep sharp the Dharma?

Speaking of sharp, I'll tell you what it means to be a Christian. Every so often I remember that wonderful screen production of Somerset Maugham's Razor's Edge. The old version is very moving. Bill Murray's is okay, yet it definitely still gets the point across.

To me, there is a good example of one who demonstrates Christianity - more and more, as the movie evolves. Was he perfect? Not by a long shot. He simply applied himself, diligently.

I remember bringing it up with Bandit, some time back, relative to plot, and other literary devices. It was a good thread.

taijasi

Point well taken. Just be sure to tuck before you nip the row...or else it all unravels.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Working from the Prologue to the Gospel of St John, by your assumption, if you are the Trinity then:
"In the beginning was taijasi: and taijasi was with God: and taijasi was God.
The same was in the beginning with God."
John 1:1-2

And yet if we are to have eternal life then it follows that we have always had eternal life. Eternal goes both ways.

And if St Paul is right that we are living the new life of the risen Christ, that we are the body of Christ, then we are in some way Christ.

There is more subtlety to be had here than can be handled with a partisan retort. We can finesse our way through these discussions like any politician, but why?

It is clear that Christ came to spread the good news across the Earth. It is not the number of people that matters, it is the openness with which it is shared. Belief is not a matter of a creed, oddly enough. What could be more arid or pointless than an assertion of the characteristics of God? What makes belief substantial is how it is borne out in our lives.

Jesus said (IIRC) "By their fruit you shall know them. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Again "Not all those who call me Lord shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but those who do the will of my heavenly Father." So look around. Who is living in accordance with Christ's teaching? Even among those who deny the existence of God there are many who know Christ better than they realise and better than some nominal Christians do.

But abondoning some of the trappings of the Christian religion does not render it null. I can still be a follower of the Way of Christ, a part of the Body of Christ, without believing in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the miracles, redemption or even a free life extention. Dropping this baggage also allows me to recognise fellow-travellers who do not necessarily share my Christian upbringing. And this, in my ultra-humble opinion, makes me more a Christian than if I clung on to it.

 

[wil]

Why I am taijasi/a


From the Encyclopedic Theosphical Glossary online:

Taijasa (Sanskrit) [from tejas light] Radiant, flaming, bright; sometimes the higher parts of a human being, such as the manasa-rupa, are designated as taijasa. A star is called taijasi, the feminine form.​

Thanks for the info on your name, don't know why I wouldn't think didn't have some profound significance.

Timing is always interesting, check out my blog from yesterday on the very subject of light...

http://wil.zaadz.com/blog

Sometimes I'm slow to figure this stuff out.​

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Chris, Excellent post. I'm not really sure we can call Christianity an ethnicity based upon the secularization of Christmas, but whatever floats your boat. I do agree however that arguing over the title Christian is not only a humongous waste of time but also distracts from and often goes against our commandment to love each other.

My post was not in defense of the title "Christian," but in reponse to the idea of someone complaining that Christianity has no meaning or distinction after gutting the main beliefs of traditional Christianity. Perhaps I read it wrong above, but it struck me as someone killing the lion then looking at the corpse and complaining: who could ever consider this dead beast beautiful and majestic? Sorry, I was just shooting form the hip there. That's what you respect, right?

I don't know where to put myself in the spectrum of Christianity these days and I don't know if I ever will. It certainly would be nice to be certain, but I have a healthy distrust of certitutde. I don't know. I don't think we can read the Bible on our own and come up with some 'plain' answers. You've suggested in the past that the Bible is an easy book to understand if one takes the time to read it. I'm not so sure about that. I do think, however, that I can come up with some living Christian principles, such as love each other, take care of widows and orphans.

I'm living in the tension Chris.

Christianity is, foremost, for the disenfranchised. If it's not, then Christianity surely is dead.

luna

Hi Luna, how was Ireland?

Just for the heck of it sometime try putting aside the preconceptions you have about the Bible and just read it for what it says at face value. It's not easy, but you can do it if you try. Just put all your beliefs aside (temporarily of course) and read it like a story. See, I think the problem with the Bible is that we come at it from a connect-the-dots perspective. This text here, plus this other text over here, equals this bit of dogma. So, what I'm suggesting is to try removing all the sacredness and religious baggage, just temporarily, and read it from an ordinary perspective like you would any other book. You'll be surprised how easy it is to understand when the text is allowed to mean what it says at face value.

Of course that's just the surface veneer, I'm not saying that there aren't layers of meaning under that, but most people have never allowed themselves to experience that surface level because they want to dive immediately into the super symbolic stuff underneath. But that's like hoping to be a great pianist without ever practicing.

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Luna, how was Ireland?

Just for the heck of it sometime try putting aside the preconceptions you have about the Bible and just read it for what it says at face value. It's not easy, but you can do it if you try. Just put all your beliefs aside (temporarily of course) and read it like a story. See, I think the problem with the Bible is that we come at it from a connect-the-dots perspective. This text here, plus this other text over here, equals this bit of dogma. So, what I'm suggesting is to try removing all the sacredness and religious baggage, just temporarily, and read it from an ordinary perspective like you would any other book. You'll be surprised how easy it is to understand when the text is allowed to mean what it says at face value.

Of course that's just the surface veneer, I'm not saying that there aren't layers of meaning under that, but most people have never allowed themselves to experience that surface level because they want to dive immediately into the super symbolic stuff underneath. But that's like hoping to be a great pianist without ever practicing.

Chris

Wow, she won't Chris (answer you in kind, that is). She isn't rude. Nor does she deliberately try to hurt with words. But you and I, we understand the power of words. And we both know what "brutally honest" means.

The only difference between you and me sir, is I can't use them as veiled weapons because I promised God I wouldn't. But I never said I wouldn't step in front for someone else...

Oh, and I can play the piano, pretty damn good. (I never practiced...go figure). I think, yeah they call it "playing by ear"...

guess I'm not the only "jerk" around here.

v/r

Joshua

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Wow, she won't Chris (answer you in kind, that is). She isn't rude. Nor does she deliberately try to hurt with words. But you and I, we understand the power of words. And we both know what "brutally honest" means.

The only difference between you and me sir, is I can't use them as veiled weapons because I promised God I wouldn't. But I never said I wouldn't step in front for someone else...

Oh, and I can play the piano, pretty damn good. (I never practiced...go figure). I think, yeah they call it "playing by ear"...

guess I'm not the only "jerk" around here.

v/r

Joshua

Does this really come off as me trying to be rude Joshua? Because I swear that's not my intention. I don't what to say. Never mind then Luna, I appologize.

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

Does this really come off as me trying to be rude Joshua? Because I swear that's not my intention. I don't what to say. Never mind then Luna, I appologize.

Chris

As close to "perfect" as it gets Chris. I'm sorry too.

v/r

Joshua

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, if that's true then I must come off as rude, inconsiderate, and insensitive all the time. I'm completely miffed by that, but I accept your criticism Joshua. I withdraw.

Chris

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Guys,

Chris, I didn't read your post as rude, although you did presume, which what I think Josh was referring to. Joshua, I appreciate your concern but I think all is well here. No worries.

And you did presume incorrectly Chris, at least in part. No, I have not read allllll of the Old Testament, but I have read all of the New.

At one point in time, back in my early agnostic days, I set out to read the Bible as you suggest. I found it, in parts: interesting, perplexing, excrutiatingly boring, maddening, infuriating, confusing, and mostly pretty irrelevant to my life. And the NT was even worse because I did understand mroe of it and I found it outdated, quaint, contrived, silly and superstitous, and again, irrelevant and infuriating.

Because I had no context. I had no idea when these things were written, for who, or why.

You do assume that the only Bible I hear is in church and explained by clergy and reconstituted into doctrine. And in that you are wrong. I've done a couple of Bible study courses (the Pentateuch and Isaiah, one year long each), kind of evangelical in bent so not really my cup of tea but I did get a lot more of the history, and it helped to have the chronology of the different books pointed out for me. It helped me find my way around the Bible, learn the characters, get a hang on the language and symbols and recurring themes. And I've read the NT many many times on my own--emphasize on my own. I've read it quickly like a story, I've read it slowly, I've studied it and I've prayed with it.

And now, after all that yes, it seems easy. But it's still not easy.

It's as you say, you need to practice scales before you can play Mozart. I've done the scales and I'm nowhere near Mozart but at least now I can peck out a tune or two.

Easy would be to read Paul and conclude: God says homosexuality is always and everywhere wrong. And this would be an incorrect conclusion. We could come to the conclusion that it is never right to speak out against our government, even when the things it does are unjust. We could conclude that slavery is fine and women should be quiet in church and submit to their husbands. We could conclude that the Jews really deserve all the 'wrath' that has been poured out on them. And that would all be wrong.

If we read the Bible superficially, literally and only literally, and say 'God Says So,' then we are going to miss the good news, and the most important thing: I love you, love each other. Love each other as I love you. It's not there between the lines, it's there plain as day. It's just we allow all our other hang-ups to blind us to this, and then use the Bible to justify all the reasons we don't really have to love each other.

Ireland was great! Thank you!

luna