Technically you don't have to believe Jesus was the son of God to be a christian, i'm pretty sure...some denomonation (can't rememebr the name) is rather oldschool, and follows the teachings of jesus in the sense of judaic reform, but not the church-based doctrine of divinity.

Why, does Jesus' divinity seem like a jump to you?  Me as well.  I agree, Jesus is one of the best examples of humanity one could ever hope to emulate.  But lets not make a cult out of him shall we?

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

There is a slight difference between highest human spirit and open to the aim of God in the most full way.  The difference is the first is human achievement and the second is one in harmony with the aim of God - the latter is a way of speaking of all being sons ( daughters) of God and Jesus is a primary example of that openness to the spirit of God - fully human and full of the aim of God - still human - not God. 

The issue is one of God and God inter acting with the world and within humans - it is a non supernatural view of when there is open space God slides in and Jesus allowed that so we see God in him - it is not a god coming down to earth nor some example of humanistic idea we can do on our own.

There is a connection between humanity being fully alive and the aim of God - being fully alive is to reflect God.

I think about this a lot.  I see Christianity as a construct that would appall, amuse or sadden Jesus.  I believe it was in Tom Harpur's book For Christ's Sake  ,  where I read the line,  "Christ did not come proclaiming himself".  I doubt his aim was to start a religion that was all about him. 

I think there's a difference (a pretty huge one) between "Christianity" -- capital "C" and the message of Jesus.  Between what has evolved as the social institution of "Church" and the idea of "two or more gathered". 

Maybe you can be a "follower of Christ" without name-dropping. 

I have to pose a question then for those who question Christ's Divinity: Why are you not Jewish? Christ's divinity is the core foundation of Christianity. Jewish rabbi's and leaders viewed Jesus as a great teacher as well, but their charge in him lay in his claims to divinity, for which he was condemned as a blasphemer. To deny Christ's divinity means that we, as Gentiles, are still separate from God. If you remember, even the Egyptians that fled with the Hebrews from Egypt still had to be circumsized and "convert" (if you will); simply following Moses, Moses' God and the law was not enough. It is through Christ that us Gentiles are able to enter into the family of God and enter into His presence.

Some argue this is exclusivistics, but I ask how so? "None come to the Father except through me." However, Christ is open to all. Although Jesus came first for the "lost sheep of Israel," the Great Commission opens this invitation to the rest of us non-Jews. Therefore, I ask how you consider that you are able to come before God, as a none-Jew, if not for Christ's divinity in opening the way for us? If Christ was merely human, was he greater then Abraham, Issaac, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David and Solomon? And if he was merely human, why did his apostles repeatedly circulate the message that he was divine, despite them being devote Jews and knowing it was be blasphamy if not true?

Also, it should be remember that "Christian" meant "follower of Christ" which is why the apostles first adopted the name. Instead of shying away from the name because of some bad past incidents which now mark the name for many, should we not be working to reclaim the name and once again make it a positive thing? Looking to the church now; let me first say that up until 2 years ago, I was very anti-church. About as anti-church as a Christian can get without crossing the line (and even then I'm sure I crossed the line :P). But then God gave me a reality check; the church is the body of Christ. You are also part of the body of Christ. Therefore, if you aren't doing anything to help heal the sick parts of the body, you are part of what is making it sick to begin with; the body either works to help itself, or to harm itself. That is basic biology. Yes, the Church fell, horribly, in the past. But, is it any surprise considering we live in a horribly fallen world? Shouldn't we be working to rebuild the church in both our own eyes and in the public's eyes, instead of joinging in the taunting and finger-pointing?

Hi CoG, Welcome to Wondercafe!

For me, I want to believe more deeply in Jesus. I want to know him more as the Son of God. I want to see him more as both God and man. I want to become a better and better disciple. That's the true challenge. That's the reason for living.

Welcome to the cafe. Great post.  The question of course is how to make it a "positive thing". Is it by trying to go back to the definiton of Christian that led to the abuses that caused people to leave the church in the first place? Or is it by accepting some of the things that we know about the intent of Jesus' message and not think of ourselves as better than others (and no matter diplomatically you try to phrase it, saying that only "my way" works, is claiming to be better)

Christians are the body of Christ.  Big difference.

I'm not sure that moving forward into a different understanding of Christianity equates with taunting or finger-pointing, although I think I understand your point and agree.  I have a great deal of respect adn affection for what is coming to be called the "traditional" view of Christianity and those who follow it, churched or not. But it isn't particularly compelling to me, nor apparently to many others. And that isn't because we know less about the founder of our faith than traditionalists do. It's because we know more.

Good conversation

Here is a philosophy that strays pretty far from standard Christianity - and I like it. It is pretty much the same as what you described in your opening post.

In A Course In Miracles we are all seen as the sons and daughters of God. We potentially are all the same as Jesus, except we don't realize that. The Course teaches that Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago to help us understand that.

Now, if someone believes this as I do, are they still "Christian" ?

Elby, that sounds pretty good to me. I might put a little more emphasis on the divinity part, but you're allowing that--and if all the folks who attend church or call themselves Christian had as clearly articulated a faith as you do, the church would soar and sail and glorify God like never before.  Good on ya!

CoG

Why are we not Jewish?  Good question.

I follow the religion that Jesus followed, I don't follow Jesus "as" the religion.

I don't see where belief or not belief in Jesus has any impact on whether I believe in God. 

I believe in a God, and I won't get into the energy/singularity discussion which I believe.  The universe is ordered because of this God.  Yes, Jesus was a great man, and if I have to believe that Jesus was devine in order to be called a Christian, then I guess I am not a Christian.

There, do I feel any worse, no.  Has my viewed changed, no.

Why did he have to be the son of God?  Why did he have to die on t he cross to atone for our sins? Why does mankind have to come into the world with original sin?  What did the 15 second old baby do to deserve being born with a "you are doomed unless you repent" sticker stuck to her forehead.

My view of the universe.

IT

Russ

Elby - I liked your post.  I too believe very much in the humanity of Jesus - something that didn't get much emphasis in the Sunday School when I was growing up 50 years ago.  I too see Jesus very much as a human being with all our hopes and fears.  I see Jesus tired, hungry, hurt, discouraged.  I see him thirsty, frustrated, angry.  And as I study the gospels I see him grow and change, and develop his relationship with God to the point where his disciples looked to him and saw what God was like.   Jesus is very important to me.  Jesus shows me what God is like.  Jesus teaches me how to live in the kingdom, here and now.

Beautifully expressed, Seeler!  Thanks.

Thanks Paradox. Until you highlighted it I had missed Seelers very simple yet very profound statement.

JamesK - I think that what you've described fits very well with Christ's teachings. I believe that we are all God's children, like Christ, but that Jesus was God's favoured child - the one whose example we should follow if we want a happy family.

So, I would say that yes, that the belief you describe is very much congruent with being Christian. But maybe I only say that because I believe it as well...

CoG - why am I not Jewish.  I have at times considered other faiths.   The bottom line for me was that I believe in Jesus' teaching.   Whether Jesus was the divine Son of God or an extremely enlightened spiritual human being, I believe that he knew God in a way that most of us never will and that he had a message for us.  I believe we are to follow Jesus, because he led the way.  I also believe that it is likely God sent more than one messenger.  I don't know if God sent different messengers to different people so that they could understand or if God gave us each a different understanding so that we could follow a different message, but I believe we all have to follow in our own way and for me that is Christianity.

I see the close personal relationship Jesus had with God not as an indication of his exclusive familiarity but as an example of the realationship God wants with each of us.  I believe that it is through that relationship that like Jesus we will grow and change and ultimately improve the world we live in.

Now Omni, we have been over this already.

Elby wrote: "How far can you stray from the belief in Jesus as the son of God - or God in human form and still be a Christian"

This question reminds me of a kid who is playing with fire and is seeing how far he can push the limits before he will get burned. It makes me question why a person want to see how far they can stray from this orthodox belief, and on top of this, why it is important for them to still be able to be called a Christian. The name 'Christian' doesn't guarantee eternal salvation, so why would anyone be so concerned about keeping this name? Indeed the name bears a lot of baggage and does not do a good job of generalizing people's beliefs, since under the umbrella of 'so-called' Christians there exists so many differing interpretations regarding biblical theology.

Personally, I would attempt to define a 'Christian' as someone who believes that Christ is who he claimed to be, and seeks to obey his commands in his life. The beliefs about Jesus that you expressed above are not biblical (ie. that Jesus was not divine and therefore, that humans too can be divine); but instead deeply reflect a more gnostic view. Again, I wouldn't worry about whether or not you could still be called a 'Christian' for desiring to see how far you can stray from orthodox 'Christian' belief.

"You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."
 

GR wrote: "Christians are the body of Christ.  Big difference."

The church is the body of believers. Not a big difference.

Geo- Fire has proven to be a very useful tool in the evolution of man, but at some point someone had to pick it up and find its usefulness.

I am not trying to see how far I can stray, I am trying to see if where I am at is really in line with Christianity in any form.   The UC is pretty open, and as such it is very hard to get a straight answer about what Christianity is or is not.  

My belief is that at least for me the Jesus I follow has more power to change the world than the one who asks only that you "believe".  Question for those who can quote scripture does it actually say you have to believe Jesus was the Son of God or do you just have to believe in him?  Either way it isn't likely to change how I feel about the importance of Jesus in my life, but I am interested to know. 

Geo- Fire has proven to be a very useful tool in the evolution of man, but at some point someone had to pick it up and find its usefulness.

I am not trying to see how far I can stray, I am trying to see if where I am at is really in line with Christianity in any form.   The UC is pretty open, and as such it is very hard to get a straight answer about what Christianity is or is not.  

My belief is that at least for me the Jesus I follow has more power to change the world than the one who asks only that you "believe".  Question for those who can quote scripture does it actually say you have to believe Jesus was the Son of God or do you just have to believe in him?  Either way it isn't likely to change how I feel about the importance of Jesus in my life, but I am interested to know. 

Does anyone know how to delete when your comment double posts?

I  think you go to discussion at top of this thread that shows your post and delete one.

No that is if you post a thread twice. i don't think you can delete duplicate posts. Sorry

Elby: Regarding biblical passages, here are a few:

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
 

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
 

"Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."
 

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
 

A lot of the folks in the UCC would classify themselves as 'Progressive Christians'. However, when the traditional, orthodox beliefs about Christ are seriously questioned or rejected, I believe this is the time that a person ceases to be 'Christian' - because which specific biblical beliefs about Jesus do they uphold which would characterize them as uniquely 'Christian' or 'Christ-like'? In an extreme sense (ie. Gretta Vosper), it's essentially like taking the Canada out of Canadian...the person ceases to have that identity. The belief that Jesus was not divine/that all humans can become divine is a belief which flies directly in the face of NT scriptural teaching about human nature, and is therefore not 'Christian'.

Thank you Geo, It does seem that according to the NT you do indeed need to believe not only in Jesus but that he is the Son of God.    Not sure exactly where that leaves me.  I am not opposed to the Son of God I just find that the not Son of God depictions resonate for me.  I read things like the Pagan Christ and it seems so right.   Of course there at least the part I have read - seems like there was no Jesus at all that the whole new testament was just a story to reflect humanities relationship with God. 

It is odd because as a child I had a relationship with Christ - God existed but it was Jesus who came into my heart and it was Jesus who came with me when I left the church and went home.  It was Jesus I turned to for comfort.  Now I find the idea of Jesus as a part of the Diety so awkward and the idea of God parading around in human form so deflating from the Jesus man who truly believed and was lifted above his very being.

More to ponder.

Crazyheart - well that is one thing I liked better from the old format - the little trash can that allowed you to change your mind - or in this case remove the duplicate.

Good to see you, you are one of the posters I miss when I am not in WC.

Elby: Might I recommend a book that you may find interesting, to supplement your study on who Jesus was: "The Case for the Real Jesus" by Lee Strobel, found at any local Chapters location :)

The body of believers is more than the church. My relationship is with god, not the institution.

Elby "  UC is pretty open, and as such it is very hard to get a straight answer about what Christianity is or is not.  "

If you look at the UCC web site you will see that the UCC has creeds listed which state a belief in teh Divine Chirst as the son of God. 

To me it is the foundation of Christianity.  the belief that God sent Jesus to mankind.

can you call your self a Christian and not believe in divinity?

  Many do although till I came here I had never heard of it.

I think the UCC is open to your journey.  There is no expectation that by joining the church you have fully adopted all the beliefs.  But I think there is an expectaion that you explore the beliefs that are part of our denomination

You mean which biblical beliefs about Jesus , whose interpretation agrees with yours, .....

back on the same ol' merry-go-round geo. Just as I told Rob - there's the common thread - unless someone agrees with how you interpret those biblical passages, they're not Christian.

The irony of this has always left me chuckling. - literalists stress the need for a personal relationship with Jesus/God. But they need a book to tell them what it is. Its like they have a friend they've never met and can't see. A sort of penpal across the millennia.  But when I read these notes, and compare them with my personal relationship with God/Jesus, it becomes pretty obvious that the pen pal is actually Paul. Nice guy and all, but why get God second hand like that?

The issue is the meaning of divinity or the son of God - one can say Jesus is A son of God and still be within the tradition.  One can be a trinitarian and still see Jesus, the man, as A man. 

If one affirms that Jesus is important to ones religious understanding and there is a broad meaning to this, then one is within the Christian trajectory.

The issue is the meaning of divinity or the son of God - one can say Jesus is A son of God and still be within the tradition and reject the sone of God.  One can be a trinitarian and still see Jesus, the man, as A man. 

If one affirms that Jesus is important to ones religious understanding and there is a broad meaning to this, then one is within the Christian trajectory.

Elby , this has been a very interesting conversation. Thank you for posting it.

Hi Elby,

I think that probably depends more on the calibre of other Christians that you associate with.  Some are very flexible and some are extremely rigid.

Christian as a term simply means Christ-like.  To be like Christ is to be Christian.  The only belief which should be of any impact is what do you believe Christ was like.  So I think it personally has to do more with emulating the character of the Christ than it does properly orthodox Christology.

Although, I would submit that a properly orthodox Christology is probably closer to the narrative of scripture when it comes to capturing the character of Christ than anything else. 

Speaking truthfully, I submit that as often as Christ did that our doing that aids in our being identified as Christian.  Speaking with wisdom, I submit that as often as Christ did that our doing that aids in our bieng identified as Christian.  Being passionate and being gentle are also characteristic of Christ and our ability to be both also reflects our ability to be like Christ and hence, Christian.

While we are attempting to be Christian we will always be human.  That means we will make mistakes from time to time.  Learning from those mistakes helps us to mature and more closely resemble Christ.  As does our ability to work productively with the mistakes made by others.

So?  How does that speak to the character of Christ?  How can you demonstrate a similar understanding in your own life so that we can see you mirroring the Christ?

Again, how does this speak to the character of Christ and how are you demonstrating the same in your own life so that we who are observing can also see Christ?

Does becoming one with God only happen when one becomes divine or can one become one with God and still maintain their humanity?

Possibly.  I am not certain that all growth is automatically Christ-like.  I think that there must be a certain direction to that growth.  One can grow nearer to as well as grow further from.

If the evaluation of your being a Christian was left up to me I would look to see what about you reminds me of Christ.  The more I saw the more I would say that you reflect Christ and are demonstrating what it means to be a Christian.  If I didn't see anything in you that reminded me of Christ I would probably say just that.  You don't "appear" Christian to me.

Appearances are deceiving and everyone should keep that thought first and foremost.

It allows that some who do not appear to be Christian may, as a matter of fact, have a more Christ-like character than those who do appear to be more Christian only possess a facade.

It isn't what goes in that matters as much as it is what comes out.

Grace and peace to you.

John

GR: See thats the thing. You try to shut down another's interpretation, and assume that yours is the correct interpretation, although we rarely even see what you believe. Heckling is easy business, but unless you're willing to make a stand for what you believe in then don't expect to be taken seriously by your dialoguing partners. But you aren't interested in biblical interpretation anyway. As you said,:

"But they need a book to tell them what it is." (Regarding a personal relationship with God).

Instead, you are interested in what is commonly known as 'picking and choosing' that which is desireable to you. You hijack certain biblical truths as a literalist when convenient to you, but reject all the rest. Where Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism maintain the most core foundational truths about Christ, many Progressive Christians reject even these. So it is not a matter of interpretation, but of rejection. The NT scriptures clearly taught that Christ died for our sins...before you or I ever interpreted it.

For example, the following is a demonstration of what you would do with the scriptures that shows you are not even attempting to 'interpret' the scriptures, but that you are rejecting them altogether:

Bible: "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."
 

GR: No, in my heaven there are many rooms. Therefore everyone will be there, even if they don't have the Son. Geez son.

Bible: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

GR: lol Peter, you've really messed this one up son. Don't you know that all paths lead to God? It was a nice try, but your sleight of hand isn't really working. 8-)

Bible: "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished..."

GR: lol Paul, same old merry go round friend. You are a good guy, but why do we need you to be God's hand for us?

If this is inaccurate, then lets hear what you actually believe?

(GR will write: lol son, we've been through this.)

LOL GR, it's all fun, like old times, right? ;)

Nope, but thanks for trying to shut me down by making the charge against me

     My point, Geo, is that there is room in my faith for your interpretation - so how do you then charge me with shutting it down? 

     As to mine being the "correct" interpretation - well of course son. If I didn't think it was a more accurate reflection of God's intent, why on earth would I follow it?? that's just too funny.

Oh stop being foolish already    That childish tactic might convince other literalists but its about as true as you claiming to be your sister last year - lol.  What I believe is absolutely crystal clear Geo. If the hundreds of posts I've made here aren't enough for ya, drop on in to www.goldenruleradical.org or www.seemslikegod.org or download and read my book Do Unto Others www.goldenruleradical.org/do_unto_others.htm

(now of course, you'll bellyache that I'm plugging myself. sheesh.)

Lol - man, how much work you go to try to turn every dodge you take my fault. If you'd actually read my post, instead of working so hard to find excuses to dismiss it, you'd know, as most readers do, that I am very much interested in biblical interpretation. If I wasn't why on earth would I bother pointing out all the places we disagree?  For that matter, how could we disagree if I didn't have an interpretation?

What you fail to realize Geo, you and the others who go on these personal attacks against me, is that by doing so you make obvious the fallacy of your own claim to supremacy. That I don't spend volumes saying that I don't agree with you the way John and Pan, or even Killer do just tells me that I hit the raw spot that you already know exists. Where John and Pan try to heal your wound with the cooling sauve of mountainous discussion, I just pick off the scab and let the pus run out.

So thanks for proving the effectiveness of my approach. It can be brutal, (and in fact if you thought I was a tough love kinda guy last year, just wait til you see me now), but it works.

And let me share something with you - or perhaps simply leave you with a question - Where do think that the heightend commitment to this approach has come from? Who do you say it is that calls me to speak plainly and without ambivalence?

Be Well Geo

David