(03-27-2010, 11:42 PM)Lavazza Wrote: Hey Monica,
Just curious, how do CU's handle the parts of the bible that DO talk about hell, eternal damnation, etc? I ask because I had a friend at work who left to join a seminary. He was very, very bible based. It was the core of his spirituality and interpreted it literally. As such, no level of logic or philosophy that I attempted to impart upon him when we would talk shop (talk about religion basically) would make any imprint because regardless of what I would say, I would be 'proven wrong' by the bible. I presume CU's do not hole the bible as 100% literally true, even though they are 100% bible based?
I'm not sure if my CU friend is representative of all CU's but I will share with you what he told me.
He absolutely does believe the Bible is 100% true. However, he somehow manages to make sense of it in a deeper way than the fundamentalist Christians. The FC's read 'hell' and translate 'eternal damnation' but my CU friend reads 'hell' and goes back to the words it was translated from, thus getting a totally different meaning. Evidently there are several terms, one of them being hades, which means a dump outside the city. (If I remember correctly - I might have gotten the terms mixed up...but I know one of them meant a dump outside the city.)
I don't remember his exact explanation, but basically he said that 'hell' is a place of correction...a tempering of the sword in the lake of fire, for the purpose of purifying the soul. Thus, nonbelievers would not perish, but would be tempered, and ultimately be redeemed.
The important distinction between CU's and FC's is that the FC's believe nonbelievers will burn in 'hell' forever, with no chance of ever being redeemed, whereas the CU's believe that ALL will be redeemed eventually.
His explanation of this was citing scriptures stating that God's wish is for all to be redeemed, and whatever God wants, God gets. He said it was inconceivable that God could want all of his children in 'heaven' but lose so many. I commend him for his logic! He said that if Jesus died for all humans' sins, then that means all are saved, else his mission was a failure.
(For the record, I personally reject the entire notion of Jesus dying for anyone's 'sins' but I'm just sharing what they believe, as I understand it.)
When I asked my friend about the atrocities supposedly not only ordained but commanded by 'God' in the old testament, he admitted that the authors of the Bible recorded those events as they viewed them with human eyes - ie., distorted. I appreciated his honesty and determination to believe that God is loving, despite his own Book illustrating a savage, wrathful tyrant. It has been said, "You can tell a lot about a person by the image of God they project" and my friend projects an image of a loving God who welcomes ALL his creation eventually, rather than believing an elitist "I'm saved you're not" doctrine.
I have some of his discourses saved in emails which I would be happy to share with anyone who is interested - just pm me. This guy is absolutely brilliant! I saw him go head-to-head with pastors and he never wavered in his ability to totally outclass them with his deep Bible knowledge. I marveled at his ability to find the love in the present moment, even when the 'present moment' was a book that I find to be mixed polarity at best.
In other words, I am speculating that these CU's chose the STO path, not because of, but despite the STS messages in the Bible. And by doing so, they were able to holographically transform the Bible into a book of Love. They were able to make sense of what I consider the STS messages, in the context of a greater STO message.
For example, I have issues with the old testament. Knowing that the books of the Bible were written by men, and some may have been channeled, I don't consider the Bible to be any more 'from God' than any other books written by anyone else. Thus, having shed the stricture of being forced to believe it as an authority, I have no problem rejecting the parts that don't resonate. For me, that is most of the old testament.
I first realized this some 25+ years ago, when I was reading about how the being they thought was 'God' supposedly told them to slaughter all the neighboring tribes, and leave no survivors, not even children! I found this despicable! Think about it. If someone did that today, we would consider him an evil tyrant! (Someone has done it - Hitler - and he is considered by most people to be one of the most evil humans to ever walk the Earth.)
Then, if you read Leviticus and Deuteronomy, you will see explicit instructions for blood sacrifice, utilizing magickal practices, stones, etc. If we were to read this, not knowing it was supposedly 'from God' what would we think of it? We'd think it was a manual on black magick rituals!
If you were to point out these things to FC's they don't have an answer other than to say, "We cannot understand the mysteries of God." Or, at best, they might say, "Those children had to be slaughtered because their parents were so evil" to which I would say, "Then would you kill a child today because his father was a murderer or rapist?" which totally blows their minds. They have no answer because there is no answer. They then fall back on the "God had his reasons and it's not our place to question God."
But I did question it. I questioned whether it was actually God. This was 25+ years ago, when I first realized that the Bible was just a book written by humans, in their effort to understand God, just as other books have been written by other people in other cultures, in their own attempts to understand God.
Now, if the person seems receptive, I might bring up some of these points. If you just blast people with this stuff, it usually does a number on their head and they can't handle it. Occasionally, though, I come across someone who thanks me for voicing what they had already been thinking...for giving expression to the secret doubts they'd been harboring for years.
The Bible has so many contradictions that they really have to go to great lengths to make sense of it, as far as establishing a set doctrine. It would be a lot easier if they didn't try to make a religion but just focused on the STO parts, the teachings of Jesus! But in order to create a doctrine that followers are required to believe, they had to pick and choose, focusing on certain passages while brushing away others, with the end result being an elaborate 'sin' based concoction just to explain the atrocities in the old testament.
The CU's also have their elaborate doctrine, but it's much more reasonable, compassionate, and loving, imho. This just shows how we can each interpret the same words in different ways, to accommodate our choice to polarize STO or STS, or remain firmly rooted on the fence.
(03-28-2010, 09:10 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: Is there a way, a thought that would sabotage that "bible is 100%" correct idea? I always thought simply reading Leviticus would stop anyone from wanting to take it literally. It doesn't, they just selectively take it literally and still call it 100% truth..
I've tried. It's like trying to break thru concrete, usually. It's amazing just how deep the programming is. It goes back generations. Questioning the Bible is very taboo. I've seen looks of terror when the question is even raised.
I don't think we have the right to freak people out like that...unless they are using their beliefs to impose on others...which they do...a lot. In those cases, raising some questions can maybe break thru the deep-rooted STS fear programming.
(03-28-2010, 09:10 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: Seriously, I've been offering camels and goats to any Christian who claims to take the bible literally... But I've never managed to buy myself their daughter as a slave that way. So that proves there is some common sense to work with. Right?
HAHA! Let's be glad most of them don't take the old testament literally! But it's amazing how they don't see the contradictions.