I'm pretty liberal but I think the crucifiction/resurrection happened.

I don't believe that god loves us but I don't really see why it matters. I believe that god has no intelligence or sentience, so it would be incapable of anything like that anyway. And either way, just be happy that you're alive and living a comfortable life. God doesn't need to love us in order for our lives to be full and prosperous.

I also don't see why Jesus' resurrection MUST be historical fact in order for god to love us. That is extremely specific and illogical (in that there is no logical connection between the resurrection and agape) for it to be a very sensible requirement for god to love us.

Hi Serena:

When we experience Kosmos, or God, or Kosmic Unity, then this Unitive experience usually is acompanied by a Unitive emotion which most people who have experienced it describe as "love."

Love, however, is a human emotion, but it is the emotion we experience when we experience our at-one-ment with God. And, because we are an inseparble part of God, we are that part of God which is, or can be, love. In us and through us, God became, is, and experiences love, and, ultimately, loves us.

In Unitive Love,

Arminius  

well, i'm pretty liberal.  for me, i consider the death and ressurection of christ to be not a blood sacrifice, but an example to us to lead us to god.

so it makes perfect sense to me to celebrate easter.

does that make sense to you, serena??

Wow Serena - this is a tough one to put into words, and condense down to a few paragraphs.  First, I see it as two separate questions. 

(1)  How do we know God loves us?  Because God is love.  God is the ground of all being, the soul of the universe.  "God saw the world and it was good."  God gave us hearts to reach out to each other and to God, to be in relationship with God.  God gave us joy.  God gave us beauty.  We long for love.  We find love in God.

(2)  Why do we celebrate Lent and Easter?  I suppose each one of us has to answer for herself.  Me - I celebrate all the seasons of the church year - they help to keep me 'on track' spiritually throughout the year.  Letn is a time for me to remember all the things that God has done for us - from the rainbow this Sunday to the glorious realization that love conquered death on Easter morning, that the Spirit could not be killed, but lived and continues to live.  During Lent I remember the sacritice that Jesus made.  Yes, my fellow liberals - sacrifice.  There is a line in one of the Gospels 'He set his face steadfast towards Jerusalem.'  He knew what was facing him there.  Goodness, even the desciples knew when they decided to go with him.  Wasn't it Thomas who said 'Let us go with him and die with him.'?

Jesus didn't have to go to Jerusalem at that particular time, when he knew that the Roman soldiers would be quick to arrest and execute anyone suspected of being a rabel-rouser, anyone who could raise a following, anyone who could disturb the peace - and the temple authorities had a vested interest in siding with the Romans.  So Jesus knew it was a dangerous place for him to be.  He could have stayed in the back country of Galilee, teaching and healing the local people who came to him.  But no - he 'set his face steadfast towards Jerusalem'.  And he died for what he believed in - a kingdom of heaven on earth.  That was a sacrifice Jesus made when he choose his path.   So I observe Lent - not as well as I should - but I observe it.

Easter - to me this is the most significant celebration of the church year.  I have my favourite stories.  The road to Emmaus speaks to me.  So does the scene on the lakeshore tacked on as a final chapter to John.  In both Christ was made known in the breaking of bread.  So many times Jesus had shared a simple meal with his followers - giving thanks, breaking the bread, and passing it around.  And in these stories they realized that even death could not destroy the Spirit - the Spirit of God that they had seen in the man Jesus - the Spirit of God that loved them, and cared for them, and that had promised to be with them always.  Even death could not defeat it.  It was alive and with them - and would be with them forever.  Hallelujah.

Christ Lives!!!!

Hi Serena,

You wrote:

"The Articles of Faith of the United Church seem to be far more conservative than what the mainstream actually believe."

With the greatest respect, I would contend that a great many  United Church Christians are in essential agreement with the Articles of Faith.  I am.  At the same time I celebrate being part of a church family with a wideness that welcomes a traditional believer like myself and a cosmic believer like Arminius.

Some believe the death and resurrection of Jesus was literal, others a metaphor, still others a myth.  But however you approach the cross,  the death and resurrection of Jesus reveals the depth of love that God has for each of us individually.  Atonement theology aside, the death and resurrection of Jesus is the most compelling symbol of love that God could provide...the very life of her/his son.

United Church moderator Bill Phipps created a great deal of controversy during his tenure, by revealing his personal belief does not include the literal death and resurrection of Jesus.  While I don't agree with his contention, what I do agree with was that part of his statement that acknowledged  something happened that transformed Jesus'  believers and transformed the world (my apologies if this paraphrase is not exact). 

Reverend Phipps was right; something happened on that cross and in the days following that transformed the world.  I personally celebrate both for the transformation and the source of that transformation.

God bless,

I think that there is a mission afoot to have the Articles of Faith made historical and the xhurch is moving on from there.  Does anybody know anything about this?

I'd like to hear more about that too.

What leads you to believe that?

Serena,

I agree with Sighsnoodles on this subject. The crucifixion was not so much a blood sacrifice but more so a example of the direction that each and every one of us can follow.

The Buddha did the same thing when he was 29, the day his wife was to give birth to his only son. On that day Siddhārtha Gautama, walked away from his riches, his family and his way of life in order to find the true meaning of life in order to show us the way out of suffering. This came to be known as The Great Renunciation.

Eventually all of us will do the same. It probably (almost absolutely) won't be through a crucifixion per-say, but it will be a turning away from the way of life that we're accustom. And the reason why we would walk away from our comfortable life to one of suffering will always be the same: out of the love of Humanity and need to serve.

Honestly, sincerity and detachment mark the path of the true disciple, especially when spurred on by love and service to the greater Whole. This is, I believe, the true message of Easter.
 

Hi Serena

 I believe in reincarnation. Father Peter is a Christian mystic. He explains karma and the cross in the video below.

How do we know God loves us? I'd say God's love  is within people so when we feel loved it comes from God. Father Peter says we should seek out people who can give or show us real love. It could be  in a group or whatever.

In the UC I'm guessing those who don't believe literally re Easter may be able to  experience the death of the self or ego  (including forgiveness of sins) and rise again to start over as in new life. Gosh,  I hope I'm making sense. Its tough to explain. I do believe literally in the death and resurrection of Jesus. "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies......" you know that verse.

 P.S. The Jews are still waiting for Elijah. At the seder table on passover they set a place for him and leave the door open.

 

 

Interesting videos Stardust. I've never seen such an open minded Catholic Priest before. The comments on the reincarnation video reads much like the comments on our own WonderCafe.

It seems that every year Easter brings up the subject of reincarnation. And rightfully so. The resurrection provides Christians with the promise of a life hereafter. Reincarnation does exists, I believe, and provides us with the opportunity to eventually become at-one or a-toned with the Kosmos. Resurrection, on the other hand, promises us that this atonement can be accomplished. Christ said "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me". What could this mean, other than that we all have the ability and the right to be at-one with God? Reincarnation provides us with the promise that even a life of sin can be forgiven and opportunity to make amends will always exist.

This though is a little selfish.  He left his child without a father to support him and his wife without a husband to help her raise the child he created.  I can't respect this.

I kind of figured someone would've come back with this. I'm not sure how much of this story is myth or is true. And even if it was true then it was definitely a different time and place in the world where our values of today couldn't be applied without context. I'm sure you yourself know of all sorts of stories in the Bible where if there were reenacted today would be illegal and/or immoral.

.

They are two separate questions and originally I was going to make two threads but they seem close to the same topic.

But this God is so confusing.  Sometimes he answers prayers and sometimes he does not.    Some people say that not everyone is going to Heaven only the "saved" are going.    How could a God of love do that?

Thank-you for sharing this.

A kingdom of heaven on earth.  So that would be where everyone is equal, nobody hurts anyone, slavery is gone, and we all love each other?  Eden in other words?

But if they are metaphors and did not happen literally what do they mean?

I do not subscribe to a belief-based worldview.  I don't try and "follow" a person but rather look to those values or ideals that I deem too important to lose.  So what was deluded about Jesus?  Well we read that he thought that love was pretty key to right relationship.  Is that wrong?  I find love is a positive way to engage the world.  We read that he practised radical inclusion.  Again - I like that idea too - although am not always the best practisioner...cms

Arminius is that panentheism?  (The belief system not the wondercafe member.)

This is what that three-pound glob of electric juice inside your head is for Serena. You must look past the words and into the intended meaning. It's no different than when one reads fiction and deciphers the author's intended message.

Yes, Serenea, this is Panentheism, leaning toward Pantheism.

Pantheism: All is God.

Panentheism: All is God, but God is also distinctly different.

I would say that, in the synthesis—which I preceive to be the actual state of being—all is God because there is only ONE.

In the anlaysis, however, the relationship between God and us is that of Creator to created, with the verb creating linking the two.

Creator would then be cosmic energy, creating the transcendental power that is either a quality of cosmic energy or somehow omnipresent, and the created the forms that energy transcends into.

The forms, however, consist of the same imperishable substance as the Creator, but may or may not posess the transcendental power of the Creator.

But sometimes they do, as in transcendental experience, when created becomes at-one with Creator via the power that unites and/or separates the two, the transcendental power of creating. Then the Creator creating created Trinity works in reverse: created creating Creator.

Some traditional theologians call such a transcendental experience "Grace," and attribute it to God. But I think and feel that Creator and created are innately linked, only that most of us are not aware of it. To attain this Unitive awareness is, or ought to be, the ultimate aim of religion.

Clear as mud, eh? 

Neo

I'm pretty sure Father Peter isn't affiliated with any real Catholic  church while he's teaching reincarnation ...lol. It is a bit weird tho. I just checked his website and he talks about Catholic stuff. He must be independent with his own flock. Spiritual astrology? I'm not sure I know what he means by this.Whatever.....I like him. I'm going to sign up for his courses (freebies I think) sometime. My husband's very ill at the present so its not a good time for me. I can't concentrate too well.

Credentials:

Hi Serena,

You wrote:

"I don't understand it.  If Jesus is not THE Son of God then He died for nothing and we are all following a deluded guy who could not even save himself from the cross."

What makes you think Jesus is NOT the son of God?

If you want, I'll be happy to tell you why I believe Jesus is the son of God.  But maybe it would help if you told you me why you think otherwise.

God bless,

well, imho he is the son of god. 

his example of dying on the cross was to show us exactly how deeply we have to be committed to god... if we want to be with god, we have to be prepared to DIE for those beliefs, to die defending the poor, the sick, the people that jesus died to defend. 

i'm not sure why you feel that i don't think jesus was the son of god, cause i didn't say that. 

Jesus was a product of his Judaism, and was a reformer of the religious reality of his day.  He preached the presence of God's kingdom within everyone’s experience.  He was so open to the presence of God that his consciousness became God filled.  This openness to God was as much as a human one could do, more than any other person in history, then and now

Jesus was crucified by the Empire powers as a threat.  The disciples reflected on their experience with the historical Jesus and experienced in him a creative transformation.  There was no way they could go back to the old ways.  In their life with Jesus they now realize was one of resurrection. Through that gathering they went out affirming this is the will of God  - to create new life out of the old.  In that realization they were open to the presence of God and experienced the resurrected Jesus and named that experience in the language of their time - the Christ the moment of creative transformation.

In their reflection -  “remember when the unexpected happen and Jesus healed.  Remember when the women became part of our group  - full members the unexpected happened.”  On and on they told stories - looking back after the loss to again experience the moments new life - they saw the ministry of Jesus in full relief.  The inbreaking of the Kingdom of God, the understanding of the earth as sacred space were resurrection experiences.

John’s account of Easter morning is structured as a series of discoveries, small steps of revelation that lead ultimately to the full recognition of the Risen Jesus.

The recognition of Resurrection comes to us today just as gradually. We come to realize the truth of New Life not all at once, but in moments of personal encounter where small steps of discovery lead to the opening of new possibilities for transformation. We, with the disciples, understand the act of God raising Jesus is an affirmation that life creates life -that life is product  of relationships.  What is real is what is created by relationships and those relationships are both external and internal. They saw God in Jesus - then and now.  Now they felt God in themselves - now.  They made concrete - actual - their experience of Jesus so that it could be passed on,  offered it back to the next moment of experience,  for us to make it meaningful as our experience of new life  God resurrected Jesus in their experience and that resurrection experience is found when we seek life in life not in the negative and wreckage of life around us.
 

Creative Transformation has been going on since the beginning of creation - novel reality that is now the base for the next moment of novel reality.
Jesus openness to the lure of God is different only in a matter of degree and he showed that to be fully human is let God all the way in.  It is to find life in life.

This question of whether these bones will live again is one that defines all of us.  It is a question when life does not bear witness to good and but to evil.  The fundamental issue when evil lives and the good die.  Where is God? 

This was the issue for the Jesus community.  What now?  Some ran away. Lost trust. Lost their nerve.  Still looking among the tombs for life.

They had been an occupied people.  They lived under foreign occupation and had internalized that reality.  They were those whom society has tossed aside.  They felt unwelcome. In the ministry of Jesus they had begun to discover hope, began to trust God.  They were beginning to resist the metaphor of occupation. They were no longer no people but were beginning to experience themselves as the people of the way - the way of compassion and inclusion.  Then this experience.

It is important to understand that resurrection for them was a common expectation.  We moderns find it hard to understand resurrection.  For moderns resurrection is impossible, except , of course, in the case of Jesus.  For us it is an unique event.  However, the ancients assumed resurrection for important heros.  It is what happened to sons of god and heros.  But Jesus did not fit well into this fraternity.  For the ancients Jesus would not have been a likely candidate for resurrection.  His death was not heroic.  He was born a peasant and died a criminal.  Yet his followers said of him what others said of Hercules or Caesar - he is resurrected.   A nobody.

It is important to understand some of the metaphors used in the witness to the transformation the early community experienced.  Jesus’ blood split for all is an affirmation of transformation.  Blood is symbolic of the spirit that flows through all, to energize, to give purpose.  It is a spiritual reality that transforms our physical reality, Thus the blood of Jesus is an offer of a  new covenant.  It is about the relationship of God with the world.  Thus, the blood is a restoration to the truth about reality not a sacrifice. With Jesus we see life full of the Grace of God. That is, an affirmation that in every nano second the sense of God is here, is now flowing through us.

It is important to know that an empty tomb would not be the proof of resurrection, nor was it a miracle for miracles were dime a dozen, nor was this some ghostly appearance.  Paul’s concept of the resurrection is bodily, but not physical.  It is an affirmation that those who risk death will not be lost, and this is an experience that is true for all who risk, who live out of hope.  It is a radical trust in the compassion of God, that despite the occupation of fear or enemies, one is not defined by negativity or occupation.  The past does not define but the hope for the kingdom of God does. And Jesus worked faithfully for that kingdom despite the dangers.  “Jesus is risen” is an affirmation that God’s empire is the truth about reality, not Caesars.

 What is truly remarkable is it the community thought that Jesus was risen.  For he was not a hero. He lead no armies. He inspired no rebellion. For those were those who would be resurrected  but not a peasant with a small compromised  following.  The faith statement was, it was Jesus who was raised not Caesar.  The experienced went against expectations.

Hi Serena:

Jesus was fully human and fully divine, and so are we—if only we knew it!

Jesus brought us the message of our divinity. Alas, instead of heeding his message and and opening ourselves to the divine in us, we divinized only the messenger and left ourselves mundane. This was the cardinal (pun intended :-) mistake of our religion. It is high time for us to remedy that mistake and heed Jesus' primary message.

I don't think morality ever goes out of date.  I think that the values we have today (some of them) even if they were not shared they were wrong back then.  For example Lot offering his daughters up to the neighbours to be sexually molested?    I mean even though that was legal it was still wrong.  There are things that we do today that are legally right but morally wrong.

And what makes what Lot did morally wrong? Is it just because you personally believe that it's wrong or is there an actual objective reason that leads you to believe that it's wrong?

So it is not wrong to gang rape two young teens even though it will probably cause them a great deal of pain and emotional distress?  There are some things that are always wrong.  But I am sure that there are some pimps around who would say gangraping to young girls is totally acceptable as long as the pimps were paid.

Only one of many quotes in the Bible that addresses things which I find morally wrong, even though legally OK in those days.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

The Bible was written by people 2000 years ago to inform people who lived 2000 years ago.  The fact that it does not mesh with 21st century sensibilities doesn't make it wrong, it makes it a book written 2000 years ago for people who lived at that time.

Do you read Homer and take care opening the door of your house lest there be a monster there?

Do you take care of the slave that was OK to own only 150 years ago?

Could go on forever but you get the point.

And that is why this need to look at the Bible metaphorically.

As Arminius says, stop adoring the messenger and adore his message instead.

I am the way doesn't mean pray to Jesus, it means follow my way, my God, live like me.  Care about others, darn it.

IT

Russ

I don't think KR is arguing it's not wrong, but asking what the framework is that leads you to that conclusion.  We all have the same stomach-turning reaction at the repugnance of this story, one of the most horrid in the scriptures.  But thinking carefully about what our underlying moral code is, is one of the key steps to learning how to talk to each other respectfully.  A case like this, where we all already agree on the conclusion, is an easy place to start.

What makes ME say it is just plain wrong?  At the heart of most of my moral convictions is the base principle that we ought to treat each other, and our natural world, with respect and love.  Harming other living things for our benefit, or treating living things as simple possessions is rarely something that I consider morally acceptable.  In this case, the offering of the daughters was completely unnecessary.  The crowd was outside, and he could have simply locked his door.

RevMatt

"At the heart of most of my moral convictions is the base principle that we ought to treat each other, and our natural world, with respect and love.  Harming other living things for our benefit, or treating living things as simple possessions is rarely something that I consider morally acceptable."

And yet, for strictly agruement sake:

"Prisoner of war camps in Japan housed both capture military personnel and civilians who had been in the East before the outbreak of war.

The terms of the Geneva Convention were ignored by the Japanese who made up rules and inflicted punishments at the whim of the Camp Commandant.

The majority of prisoners were put to work in mines, fields, shipyards and factories on a diet of about 600 calories a day. Harry Carver comments "..I was - a white slave. I worked 12 hours a day on a diet of soya beans and seaweed." Prisoners were rarely given fat in their diet and all were continuously hungry. The majority survived on barley, green stew, meat or fish once a month and seaweed stew. Red Cross parcels were not distributed to the prisoners

According the Japanese, at the time, this treatment of enemy prisoners would have been considered moral.

Therefore, is morality not relative, making the Bible story repugnant but OK by the standards of the day?

IT

Russ

I don't think we are in disagreement, Russ.  It was OK by the standards of the time.  It is not OK by the standards of now.  Everything we read is reinterpreted through the eyes of the reader, after all.

If I were arguing for my definition as some kind of absolute definition of good, I would have to argue that the standards of the times were mistaken.  I think I could make that argument.  One would make the same argument to the Japanese.  What they did may have been acceptable to their society at that time, but that doesn't mean their society wasn't mistaken :)

I have to quote stevieG's wise words. We can change nothing that happened in the bible, but we can learn from it.

They were not raped, gang or otherwise. They were saved when the angels blinded the men at Lot's door. What Lot did was disgusting and morally reprehensible yes, but thank GOD for grace.

Not quite.  The mob simply wasn't interested.  The blinding came later.  But yes, they were not actually abused.

Full story:

www.biblegateway.com/passage/

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

Genesis 19:5-11

Who knows what the men of Sodom would have done if the suceeded at breaking into Lot's house. Beat Lot to a bloody pulp? Rape his daughters? One could infer from the text that the angels saved everybody in Lot's house from whatever the men of Sodom had in mind for them, including Lot's daughters.

But yes, the point is that both Lot and his daughters were spared and not harmed.

Serena,

Of course the 20 Articles of Faith set out in the Basis of Union are more conservative than what many Christians currently believe, whether they are United Church folk or those of other Christian denominations. It was, after all, 1925. It seems a date not that long ago. We forget how much has changed since that date in 1925.

Women could not be ordained. They had only been voting in the US for 5 years. Canada would be another 3 years (1928) before they discussed whether women could sit in the Senate (1928) Anti-Semitism was accepted in most the world. Hitler published Mein Kampf in 1925.  No bubble gum, no talking movies.. churches with no hydro... no pennicillin... It was before the Scopes trial, the depression, before Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., nuclear bombs...

before civil rights, polio vaccines, McCarthyism.... before AIDS, with only one winter Olympics under their belt... Times have changed. Who we are and what we believe has changed.  That is why "essential agreement" is the catch phrase.

You said, "On many threads the liberals taunt the fundamentalists by saying things like "My God does not require a blood sacrifice...." 

You see the expression of some liberals of their beliefs as a taunt. That does not mean it is meant as a taunt. It can be simply a statement. If I say "my mom does not make me eat brocolli", it can be a taunt or it can simply be a statement.

You asked if Jesus did not die for sins, rise bodily form the dead then how do we know God loves us? Can you not find any single instance of God's love before the Passion stories? For you,  Jesus must die to forgive all our sins in order for God to love us. For me, I do not believe in that cornerstone that you do believe in of original sin. 

 There are those who see God's love in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the Christian Scriptures. I look at the creation stories in Genesis and see love.  If Adam eats of the tree it means moth tumuth, death, period. Yes, there are those who believe that they gave up immortality and that is why we die. Me, that is not my belief. I read Adam and Eve being expelled from Eden so they did not eat of the second tree, the tree of life, and gain immortality. So, I do not see that they once ever had immortality. I am reading quite literally and yet there is still a difference of how it is interpretted. For me, being told you will die and only getting kicked out is love.

As far as how can one be not so literal about son of God, atonement, resurrection... and still have Lent and Easter, is there more to Lent and Easter than proving you are the Messiah and crucifixtion and ressurection?

I would say yes.  There is the 40 days in Sinai, 40 days Elijah walked to Mt. Horeb, 40 days in the desert. There is reflection... There is the walk. If you stay in the Christian Scriptures, there is the walk before Easter that we can go to the darker places and  humble ourselves before God. It can be a journey of spiritual pilgrimage. For me, who believes in no original sin, no God come to Earth as a human, no biological son of God... who believes that none can atone for me but me, and that physical death is physical death.... it still offers the potential to quit praying for others and see the ashes on  my own forehead.

Peace,

Stevie G

RevMatt

I absolutely agree.

Sooo, as most of us are not willing to sell all our possessions, give to the poor, and live as paupers, are we immoral

IT

Russ

Deep in human consciousness anthropology tells us is the idea of scapegoat.  It is the primitive response who is going to pay for disharmony - who has to be appeased to settle a score.  It is found in the statement "we are going to have to pay for this good fortune or this storm is a punishment ( God? Earth?)" Things go wrong and we say "who did you offend in a past life?

We scapegoat - naturally?- we blame our parents we blame our foreparents for not being like us or causing us to have this problem. We say you are to blame for my problems. Scapegoating is to appease.

Scapegoating is to appease a vengeful Gods.  In John we have "look, the Lamb of God, who does away witht he sin of the world."  This is a shift in transaction.  In the scapegoating it is God who must be appeased.  John reverses the logic.  It is God who is sacrifices or because the one who shoudl receive the sacrifice is scrificed.  The logic of scapegoating is rejected by this  There is no need for sacrifice to make payment for sins.   Scapegoating is what we do and God in John's logic rejects it.  God does not reqire blood.

Interesting we have misunderstood the 'sacrifice of Jesus' as scapegoating.; In the story the logic is reversed - God says all appeasing is out for the one sacrificed is God ( this how the logic of the time worked in Greek logic) You cannot appease because God needs no sacrifice. No transaction is needed.  Now I grant this view is not always articulated, in fact within some circles denied.  So the job of a christian is to show the false logic of scapegoating and how that informs much of what we do. Yes in one sense we need to repentant of how some maintain this false logic of scapegoating. and how it is secularized and carried in secular stories and fiction.

This is the most powerful statement of your post.

We have modern day monsters.  That would either be bill collectors or mother-in-laws. 

So you are interpretting the Lot story as methaphorical rather than literal?

Serena

In most cases I consider the Bible as something to be read methaphorically, but in the case of Lot, one wonders.  Were the men at the door referring to a homosexual encounter?  Considering that women were considered proprty and could be sold into slavery, perhaps in this story, there is much truth?

IT

Russ

The lot story is a metaphor - not to be taken literally - as if it were a historical event - it is about hospitality and the importance of it - the men showed no hospitality and that is the issue.

You still haven't demonstrated how it is universally morally wrong. For instance, let's say that there are aliens on Mars that are studying human behaviour with very advanced survalence technology that lets them see and hear inside of buildings all the way from space. Let's also say that one of these aliens witnesses an act of rape, wherever it may be. This particular alien is a professional researcher knows a lot about human behaviour (as much as a non-human can be expected to know anyway, remember that as a non-human there are things that the alien just won't be able to truly understand). Is the alien 100% guaranteed to believe that the act is morally wrong for us to do?

Also, you just admitted that some people may consider rape to be morally acceptable, which means that it is not a universal rule, or else the entire universe would understand it to be so (which includes every single human), just as the entire universe operates within the boundaries of the (universal) laws of physics, and cannot fight them.

Serena, from the Buddhist Studies website, this snippet may give some insight into the story of the Buddha's child. It's an interesting read. Remember that Buddha was a very rich man when he left his palace. His wife was not without support. 

Rahula -— The Son of the Enlightened One

86. Just before Prince Siddhartha renounced the world, his wife Yasodhara gave birth to a son. According to legend, when the birth was announced to the prince, he said, "A fetter (rahula) has been born, a bondage has been born," and this is how the boy got his name. It is more likely that he was named after a lunar eclipse (rahu) that might have occurred around the time of his birth. Either way, the birth of this child only served to make Prince Siddhartha's desire to escape from what had become for him a golden cage, even more difficult. On the evening he had finally decided to leave, the Buddha peered into the royal bedchamber to take one last look at his sleeping wife and child, but the mother's arm obscured the child's face.

87. Seven years after he left, the Buddha returned to Kapilavatthu. Yasodhara took the little Rahula to listen to the Buddha's preaching. When they arrived, she said to him: "This is your father, Rahula. Go and ask him for your inheritance." The child walked through the assembly and stood before the Buddha, saying, "How pleasant is your shadow, O Monk." When the talk had finished and the Buddha left, Rahula followed him, and as they walked along Rahula said: "Give me my inheritance, O Monk." Of course the Buddha no longer had gold or property but he had something far more precious - the Dharma, so he turned to Sariputta and said: "Sariputta, ordain him."[ N1 ] Later, the Buddha's father, Suddhodana, and Yasodhara complained that the boy had been taken away without their permission, as a result of which the Buddha made it a rule that parental consent was necessary before someone could be ordained.[ N2 ]

88. As if to make up for the seven years he was without a father, the Buddha took great interest in Rahula's moral and spiritual education, teaching him many times himself, and making Sariputta his preceptor and Moggallana his teacher. Rahula responded to this excellent tutelage by being an eager and attentive student and it is said that each morning as he awoke, he would take a handful of sand and say: "May I have today, as many words of counsel from my teacher as there are here grains of sand." As a result of this enthusiasm, the Buddha said of his son that of all his disciples, he was the most anxious for training. When Rahula was still a boy, the Buddha discussed with him aspects of Dharma that were suitable for the young and in such a way as he could understand and remember.

Rabbit - if one takes what is called hard core common sense -one does arive at what appears to be a universal - it is type of categorical imperative.   Even in the culture where rape, for example, is used to dominate a group the very fact it is used to dominate suggests a hard core value or virtue of character.  It is that rape is a negative and while used, it is used in negative ways.  The culture it comes from assigns negative value to it so the universal is, what acts are those that suggest broken relationships or ones that dominate the other which removes a sense of self well being?  To follow to create a sense of well being -for a self and a community - suggests that there are acts that destroy well being.  Thus the universal is well being and it may evolve through practice - what works and does not work and well being becomes clearer as we act and think about our acting and create constructions of values that refer to a more universal well being.