Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Why I Am a Christian (Sort Of)

By Robert Jensen, AlterNet. Posted March 10, 2006.


My decision to join a church was more a political than a theological act.
031006_story
Why I Am a Christian (Sort Of)

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Robert Jensen

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I don't believe in God.

I don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of a God that I don't believe in, nor do I believe Jesus rose from the dead to ascend to a heaven that I don't believe exists.

Given these positions, this year I did the only thing that seemed sensible: I formally joined a Christian church.

Standing before the congregation of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, I affirmed that I (1) endorsed the core principles in Christ's teaching; (2) intended to work to deepen my understanding and practice of the universal love at the heart of those principles; and (3) pledged to be a responsible member of the church and the larger community.

So, I'm a Christian, sort of. A secular Christian. A Christian atheist, perhaps. But, in a deep sense, I would argue, a real Christian.

A real Christian who doesn't believe in God? This claim requires some explanation about the reasons I joined, and also opens up a discussion of what the term "Christian" could, or should, mean.

First, whatever my beliefs about the nature of the non-material world or my views on spirituality, I live in a country that is extremely religious, especially compared to other technologically advanced industrial nations. Surveys show that about 80 percent of Americans identify as Christian and 5 percent as some other faith. And beyond self-identification, a 2002 poll showed that 67 percent of all people in the poll agreed that the United States is a "Christian nation"; 48 percent said they believed that the United States has "special protection from God"; 58 percent said that America's strength is based on religious faith; and 47 percent asserted that a belief in God is necessary to be moral.

While 84 percent in that 2002 poll agreed that one can be a "good American" without religious faith, clearly there's an advantage to being able to speak within a religious framework in the contemporary United States.

So, my decision to join a church was more a political than a theological act. As a political organizer interested in a variety of social-justice issues, I look for places to engage people in discussion. In a depoliticized society such as the United States -- where ordinary people in everyday spaces do not routinely talk about politics and underlying values -- churches are one of the few places where such engagement is possible. Even though many ministers and churchgoers shy away from making church a place for discussion of specific political issues, people there expect to engage fundamental questions about what it means to be human and the obligations we owe each other -- questions that are always at the core of politics.

The pastor and most of the congregation at St. Andrew's understand my reasons for joining, realizing that I didn't convert in a theological sense but joined a moral and political community. There's nothing special about me in this regard -- many St. Andrew's members I've talked to are seeking community and a place for spiritual, moral and political engagement. The church is expansive in defining faith; the degree to which members of the congregation believe in God and Christ in traditional terms varies widely. Many do, some don't, and a whole lot of folks seem to be searching. St. Andrew's offers a safe space and an exciting atmosphere for that search, in collaboration with others.

Such expansiveness raises questions about the definition of Christian. Many no doubt would reject the idea that such a church is truly Christian and would argue that a belief in the existence of God and the divinity of Christ are minimal requirements for claiming to be a person of Christian faith.

Such a claim implies that an interpretation of the Bible can be cordoned off as truth-beyond-challenge. But what if the Bible is more realistically read symbolically and not literally? What if that's the case even to the point of seeing Christ's claim to being the son of God as simply a way of conveying fundamental moral principles? What if the resurrection is metaphor? What if "God" is just the name we give to the mystery that is beyond our ability to comprehend through reason?

In such a conception of faith, an atheist can be a Christian. A Hindu can be a Christian. Anyone can be a Christian, and a Christian can find a connection to other perspectives and be part of other faiths. With such a conception of faith, a real ecumenical spirit and practice is possible. Identification with a religious tradition can become a way to lower barriers between people, not raise them ever higher.

We can ground this process in the ethical principles common to almost all religious and secular philosophical systems, one of which is the assertion that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. For example:

  • None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself. (Islam)

  • Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Christianity)

  • Act only on that maxim that you can will a universal law. (Kant)


One of the most playful and powerful ways this has been conveyed is in the story of the gentile who challenged two Jewish rabbis to teach him the Torah in the time that he could stand on one foot. One rabbi dismissed the question, but Hillel, one of the great Jewish theologians of the first century BCE, told the man: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."

There is an important struggle going on for the soul of Christianity, which should be of concern to everyone, Christian or not. The debate is not just at the level of arguments over whether, for example, certain Old Testament passages should be interpreted to condemn homosexuality. The deeper struggle is over whether Christianity is to be understood as a closed set of answers that leads to the intensification of these boundaries, or as an invitation to explore questions that help people transcend boundaries. Such a struggle is going on not only within Christianity, but in all the major world religions.

Where can this lead? Some might argue that promoting such expansive conceptions of faith would eventually make the term Christian meaningless. If one can be a Christian without accepting the resurrection, then calling oneself Christian would have no meaning beyond an expression of support for some basic moral principles that are near-universal.

That is partly true; if this strategy were successful, at some point people would stop fussing about who is and isn't a Christian -- and that would be a good thing. The same process could go on in other religions as well. Christianity could do its part to help usher in a period of human history in which people stopped obsessing about how to mark the boundaries of a faith group and instead committed to living those values more fully.

In other words, the task of Christians -- and, I would argue, all religions -- is to make themselves more relevant in the short term by being a site of such political and moral engagement, with the goal of ensuring their ultimate irrelevance. The task of religion, paradoxically, is to bring into being a world based on the universal values that underlie most major theological and philosophical systems -- compassion, empathy, solidarity, dignity. Such a world would be truly based on love and real solidarity, a world in which we would take seriously the claim that all people have exactly the same value.

In his 1927 lecture, "Why I Am Not a Christian," the philosopher Bertrand Russell said: "A good world ... needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead."

I couldn't agree more, and I joined a Christian church to be part of that hope for the future, to struggle to make religion a force that can help usher into existence a world in which we can imagine living in peace with each other and in sustainable relation to the non-human world.

Such a task requires a fearlessness and intelligence beyond what we have mustered to date, but it also requires a faith in our ability to achieve it.

That is why I am a Christian.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and the author of, most recently, The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights Books).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
wierdo
Posted by: Doubtom on Mar 10, 2006 12:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is your real motivation to be controversial? Do you find uniqueness in the title of Christian atheist, an obvious contradiction?

There is every opportunity to display and live by a decent code of behavior without the assistance of organized religion. I've been doing it for all of my life as have most of the atheists I've known.
In fact, all the atheists I've known are head and shoulders above all the religious people I've been exposed to.

I guess your claim cinches it,,,,this is indeed 1984! Up is really down and black is really white.

» RE: wierdo Posted by: fdr_vindicated
» RE: wierdo Posted by: Doubtom
» what's so obvious about it? Posted by: mrjones
» Courtney Love said it best Posted by: libertad
» RE: wierdo Posted by: KimmiJ
» RE: wierdo Posted by: VREmetal
» RE: wierdo Posted by: Mycos
Christian force for good
Posted by: Doubtom on Mar 10, 2006 12:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there was ever any chance that the Christian religion or any other for that matter, could be a force for good, it should have been dispelled by its history a long time ago.

Peace will reign when the last priest is hung by the last lawyer.

» RE: Christian force for good Posted by: AlienSlave
» They make clear no such thing. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Here's the problem, though Posted by: stormchilde1975
» Oh c'mon now. Nobody ever said... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Here's the problem, though Posted by: eringhorm
» Shell Game Posted by: noval
A Jesus Believing Pagan
Posted by: sisterbluerose on Mar 10, 2006 12:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My experience is quite the opposite. God/Jesus began speaking though me from the first time I attended silent meeting. I experience The diety as real an inner light if you will.
When I begain reading about feminist religion, it spoke to my contition. I begain to realize the culture was less kind for not having a female architype. And as a female raised by a divorced mother I didn't really relate to a male god, except he spoke to me.
So I begain to worship the Goddess and she spoke to me, too.
People asked me if now that I worshiped the Goddess did I no longer believe in God? I asked them if you give up old friends if you find new ones?
My children insisted on celebrating Christmas and Solstice. Holloween and Samhain.
Anyway if someone asks my religion I tell them that I am Pagan, though if we discuss it in depth, I might tell them that Jesus tells me I am a Christian.

Rationale
Posted by: peritonlogon on Mar 10, 2006 12:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This seems to me to be a giant rationale for jumping in the river. The fact that so many Americans believe in god, consider themselves religious, or are members of a church seems like a poor reason to become a member oneself. That might even be a contender for a reason to renounce one's membership. If a person wants 'moral engagement' there are coffe shops, community centers, an endless supply of options on the web and, if a person has a home, telephone and a will that person could have guests where such a thing could take place.

"The task of religion, paradoxically, is to bring into being a world based on the universal values that underlie most major theological and philosophical systems -- compassion, empathy, solidarity, dignity. Such a world would be truly based on love and real solidarity, a world in which we would take seriously the claim that all people have exactly the same value."

This is perhaps the most unempirical statement made in defense of religion, and it should be stricken from the record. It's not just our author who has made this statement, and it's right up there with 'there are no atheists in a foxhole' as wrong and, to many, offensive things that are said either in deffense of religion or in persecution of its opposite.

The fact of the matter is that 'free intelligence' and 'hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead' are the antithesis of Christianity and Religion in general. No supporting argument needed on that point. And, as far as the rest of the rationale, there is a church that the author could have joined that would have fit perfectly to his purposes, it's called the Unitarian Universalist Church. Its a place where one does not have to ascribe to any creed. Maybe there aren't any branches of it in Texas. This particular organization has had trouble keeping and adding members lately because what people seem to want in a church these days is that it orders their life and thoughts more, rather than less, that is, people want churches that restrict their intelligence more and look further backward.

» RE: ationale Posted by: rolandel
» What are you trying to say? Posted by: peritonlogon
» RE: ationale Posted by: Mycos
The Jesus I know...
Posted by: adp3d on Mar 10, 2006 12:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that me that I should have compassion for the less fortunate. He taught me that I should respect people of faith different than mine. He taught me that the place of worship should not be used as a place for personal gain. I believe that when Christ arrives yet again( and He will), He will arrive as a person that will require a great amount of compassion, and that those so called "Christians" that would look upon His person with contempt, with hate, with fear and loathing will have to pay some price for their falseness.

» RE: The Jesus I know... Posted by: klondike_yukon
» RE: The Jesus I know... Posted by: adp3d
» RE: The Jesus I know... Posted by: aviendha36
» RE: The Jesus I know... Posted by: Rev Ed
taking for granted?
Posted by: tranzidanz on Mar 10, 2006 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you write an essay and you quote from another author it is a matter of integrity to quote your source.
Are we, - humanitarians and all-, taking our humanitarian consciousness for granted? - have we really developed our values out of our own selves? - If so, then those values ought to be found in all societies, especially in the older ones and I don't believe that this is the case.
Perhaps we are not doing justice to those great teachers of humanity, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Buddha, Krisna, Mohammed, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, and perhaps others we don't know of anymore, who have through their extraordinary power infused new content into the human collective consciousness, very much like an installation of a new software. Neither the fact that people chose to abuse the power that comes with the moral highground nor the fact that humanity as a whole has not yet integrated the essence of the teachings and doesn't yet live by them is proof for the non-existence of the Original Teacher.
We cannot conclusively answer the question of whether God is or not. Per definition our mind would be incapable of such an evaluation. What is left is the testimony of those who claim to have spoken on His behalf and were invested with His Authority, namely the above-mentioned small band of extraordinary religious founders. And they all proclaim the existence of God.
Looking at history we can discern that each one of those teachers changed single-handedly human history, human culture, human thought and values on a very large scale. Their influence, as we all know, far outlived their earthly existences. Each one of them dwarfs any other movement or fashionable philosophy and if we propose to see them not in isolation or contradiction, but together and in spiritual harmony with each other, - coming from the same source and propagating the same purpose, - then we arrive at an overwhelming evidence of what could be termed God's educational program for humanity. -

And, no, we haven't graduated yet.

» RE: taking for granted? Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» Reality vs. history Posted by: rancespergl
» RE: taking for granted? Posted by: London
Christian Atheist? Are you sure?
Posted by: BlackMan on Mar 10, 2006 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God. Christianity is a belief that God exist. One can not be both. Is it me or is this confusion?

May I share some insight on the subject of defining Christianity. The first value is that one must believe the bible is the sole authority of Christianity, because any other book will confuse its authority. Secondly one must believe in the power of God, the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus was born; and lived as the Bible reads. Now after this basic understanding is accepted the steps to becoming a Christian begins.

Once the bible is accepted as its own authority divinely inspired by God through man, a person becoming a Christian can not accept any man made set of rules to define Christianity once the bible becomes the sole source of instructions on this journey. One must utilize intellect to understand this new knowledge from scripture. One must examine each point in context, content, and answer each step to Christianity with the bible scriptures as the sole set of instructions for salvation. Now what should you do next?

If you examine the scripture from Genesis to Revelations and read it word for word one is unable to understand how to become a Christian and put it all into perspective. The bible if full of clues and does not read like a novel. One must have another who understands it's context and content to teach you how to define, become, live, and die a Christian.

The definition of Christian is "belonging to Christ." The root word in Christian is Christ. In the bible the Apostles were chosen to teach what Christ taught them to the world and write the bible for us to follow as the map to everlasting peace, harmony, love, understanding, joy, oppulence, and humility. These first twelve Apostles were first called Christians in Antioch according to scripture because, they belonged to Christ as his chosen teachers. Those twelve teachers were able to spread Christ's teachings everywhere they fled as the Roman Empire and the sect of Jewish sectarian leaders prosecuted them to the death.

Carefully examined you will find that they taught, and today the same is taught, how to become a Christian in five steps. The first step is to "hear". If one is unable to hear but able to read, or unable to read but able to hear, one is able to understand the knowledge shared by the teacher. Secondly once knowledge is entered into the mind, one is required to believe the scripture's instructions and the examples taught by the Apostles in A.D. 33 in the Bible. The third step is to repent of all wrongdoing from the past. End all wrongdoing is a change in the direction one took before being convinced they are in error. The fourth step is to Confess that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that Jesus died for the remission of man's sin before his ascension into the heavens, for his rightful place on the right hand of God. The fifth step is to go down into the water grave of baptism for the remission of one's own personal sins and once the individual arise, Christ adds the individual into the body of Christ; into the Church of Christ, the only Church written into the bible, the only Church Christ created, the only Church where one can be saved.

Using intellect alone is not sufficient. One must be taught. However reasong is important while taking the journey to Christianity. One important question is, "When did the Presbyterian Church begin?" Well is certainly did not exist in A.D. 33. Who was the Presbyterian Church creator? It was a man who started the Presbyterian Church. Intellect will tell a reasonable person that if any church did not exist in A.D. 33 and was found by someone other than Jesus's Apostles in A.D. 33; must be from man not Christ. If any church was created by man it is anti-Christ, or, not from Christ; as un-Christian.

You found a denominational church that teaches man-made doctrine only.

Christ was no Christian
Posted by: eileenflmng on Mar 10, 2006 1:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He never quit being a Palestinian Jew.

100 years before Christ walked the earth, Rabbi Hillel,
understood that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema; Holy Wisdom

was the same as the Greek understanding of The Logos: The Word.


It was Paul and John who first understood The Logos: The Word is The Christ

So, before Christ walked the earth a man,

He was already a She: Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity

isn't that good news?

Here's some more:

Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10

are simpatico with 'heretical' Thomas saying 44:

'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."


What Christ is saying is:
God is already within

Message brought to you by:
A Celtic Christian of The Beatitudes, agitator of church and state, activist, poet, author historical fiction and reporter for the WAWA Blog:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

» RE: Christ was no Christian Posted by: Prophit
why i`m a deist
Posted by: bobdotj on Mar 10, 2006 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i don`t believe in miracles,mysteries,and prophecies.i`m a libertarian,theres only 1 god,he left the rest of this to us and we have fucked it up.

Christian Atheist
Posted by: patti_s on Mar 10, 2006 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are right Christ was not a Christian. He was the beginning of Christianity and the Church with all its many denominations. But the stupidest thing I have ever heard is the claim to be a Christian atheist.

You may appreciate the moral teachings of any faith but without the belief of the true core principal of a faith, i.e. that Christ was the son of God and that God is the true creator of everything, you may be as moral as you like, vow to follow all the teachings you like and that does not make you a Christian.

What it does make you is either a very confused person or a moral coward without the personal integrity to practice your true belief without the legitimization of a church. A Christian believes that Christ was the Son of God before he or she can claim to be Christian. I can only hope that if you do attend your new church regularly, you will maybe get the message.

Don't you think you would have been better off starting your own group for "Good and Moral People Who Like Christ's Teachings But Don't Believe in Christ"? Patti_s

» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: taxidave
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: cmur
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: patti_s
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: mim
» Good for taxidave... Posted by: HeidiLockwood
» Was "the buddha" a buddhist? Posted by: LeonDion
» Well, yeah. Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Well, yeah. Posted by: LeonDion
» RE: Christian Atheist Posted by: brenda123
Jesus is the face of religion
Posted by: reason on Mar 10, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our preacher used to say "The reason God gave us bodies is so we can tell one soul from the other. Maybe Jesus is the "face" of religion for us and the other countries have their own "face" for their religion, be it Buddha or whomever.

Some think that the more a person is tempted by the devil, the stricter religion they will choose. It is similar to the man who sows wild oats being very strict with his daughters.

Some psychologists believe that your attitude toward God will be the same attitude you have toward your father. If you had a loving father you will believe in a loving God and visa versa. Other life experiences weigh in on that, but I have found it to be basically right.

The Jerry Farwell fundamentalists go by the old testament. “An eye for an eye”. The more evolved a religion is, the more they seem to lean toward the teachings of Christ instead of the old laws of the old testament. “What you have done to the least among you, you have also done it to me.” “Turn the other cheek”.

There is a controversy about all of the Bible, even how many Commandments there really are.

Think about this. Suppose a Father left his ten children somewhere with a list of ten things they should and shouldn’t do and he came back 30 years later to see how they did. Say some misunderstood some of the things he meant, but did their best to do what he wanted. Say another understood what he was supposed to do, but didn’t do it. Say one relied on a leader to tell him what he was supposed to do and the leader was wrong. Say one was tempted and rationalized that his father didn’t mean to say what he said. How would God judge these people? I hope he would cast out the one who followed the wrong leader instead of thinking for himself and cast out the one who understood, but ignored what he was supposed to do and the one who decided his father didn‘t mean what he said. (But we aren’t suppose to judge.)

The devil and his temptations are beautiful. That is how he gets his claws in. No one would be tempted by ugliness, or if they could see the end results of following the devil and his evil ways. (That is my Pentecostal and Baptist way of talking.) Most pain and suffering in the world is caused by breaking the commandments. Adultery causes murder. Stealing imprisons the thief and takes away from those who have worked. It is a vexation of the spirit of the good people. Lies cause Wars. The list is endless.

It starts out you just want to do well in the world for your family. Then you start wanting more and more. Then you rationalize, you will just do this until you get that. Greed and avarice happens. That is when the Devil wins.

To be a true Chrisian you should live a simple life and lay up treasures in Heaven by tending the sick, feeding the poor and visiting those in prison.

It is easy for me to believe in religion, because I almost died and had an out of body experience. I had a lot of doubts and was mad at God when it happened. Trust me, spirituality and goodness are real. There really are Angels. If they are real, then the Devil and evil must be real too.

I don't go to church very often, but there is a feeling in Church that is no where else. You can feel the presence of GOOD and God in the air. Maybe being in a church will work a miracle for the author.

Is this athesim?
Posted by: Colin on Mar 10, 2006 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’ve read Professor Jensen’s work on Alternet here before (the one about Thanksgiving springs immediately to mind) and quite liked his work then. His thinking was clear, if controversial. This time, however, I don’t think much of his ideas.

I myself am an atheist and often find myself thinking that one of the problems we currently have is precisely the mish-mash of messages that Prof. Jensen seems to be advocating. He says, ‘But what if the Bible is more realistically read symbolically and not literally? What if that's the case even to the point of seeing Christ's claim to being the son of ‘God’ as simply a way of conveying fundamental moral principles?’ It is this bit I don’t like.

As I see it, things change when you abandon religion. The ‘templates for life’, previously provided by religion don’t apply in the same way as before – the moral goalposts do move. For example, take drugs. Drugs are, as we all know, currently illegal for many reasons, one of which, is the fact that it contradicts standard religious teachings (in most religions, though not all). Moreover, religion gives one person the moral authority to interfere in another persons life. After all, if your ultimate judge is not other people but rather ‘God’, then surely your primary goal should be to please ‘God’ rather than another person? More to the point, if the other person is doing something that specifically conflicts with the message of ‘God’, then surely you +must+ interfere otherwise you are living in sin yourself?

Then there’s the atheist view. Generally built on a backbone of Darwinism, you find yourself asking – ‘What right do I have to interfere in another persons life? Where do I get the authority from?’ Traditionally, the authority comes from such institutions as tradition (backed up by a majority held monopoly on violence) and morally justified, as I said above, by this religious authority of interference. But as an atheist you are left with nothing but logic and reason to decide these arguments. Previously held norms are no longer. You may think this is balony, but look for yourself at society. Look at the patterns of drug takers and non-drug takers - who thinks it's right, who thinks it's a moral wrong - crucially, who doesn't think it's an issue. Of course, that’s just scratching the surface of this huge topic.

Personally, when I watch religious people talking, I can’t help but find my stomach turning at the ideas they spout and the lines they draw in defining the limits of actions. So, for Prof. Jensen to claim he’s an atheist but still goes to church I find very strange. Personally, I would say he, like most ‘atheists’, isn’t really an atheist in the most important way. In the same way that, *as far as other people are concerned*, your belief in God isn’t the most important part of a religion – it’s what you do with it that counts (after all, what does it matter to them what goes on inside your head). So it is also the case with atheism. It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in God unless you really think about what that means to you and your relationship with everyone else. If you really thought about that, I don't think you would find it easy to sit a church and not feel like you've entered another, very alien, world.

If you felt the need to go to church as a political act
Posted by: Lizmv on Mar 10, 2006 4:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why choose a church that continues to be anti-gay? Why not go to a Unitarian Universalist church? Or find the Quakers? Or try a pagan coven?

Now that you're a "Christian"...
Posted by: kablooie on Mar 10, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Would you kindly do us all a favor and use your intellectual and journalistic skills to de-bunk the Book of Revelations? A worthy cause, that.

"Holier than Thou" Christians
Posted by: reason on Mar 10, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me a good Christian doesn't interfere with others. It is their life and their tests, not ours to interfere in without being asked.

I know the type of Christian you are talking about. They use religion like a club to beat others over the head with and they have a "holier than thou" attitude. There is no love in their hearts and nothing a Christian does without love is sacred. Giving without love in your heart will not get you into Heaven no matter how many works you do. Unloving Christians are stumbling blocks.

The only thing I have heard or read in the Bible about drugs is that your body is your temple and you should keep it holy. Before drugs, it was cigarettes, liquor and even coffee and tea that were taboo and still are, I suppose.

The Bible speaks of "moderation". "A little wine for thy health's sake" (or something like that). But, that is another way for the devil to get his claws in a person. One drink won't hurt you, it will taste good and make you feel good. But then as time goes by for some, it takes more and more to feel good. One cigarette won't hurt you, but the addiction will come fast and you will smoke more and more to feed it.

Drugs are harmless at first until you get into the hard stuff and you will need it more and more. First you lose your job because of it, then your family and your home. Then when you get to that point you will sell your body and your soul. You will even kill for it. It is the devil incarnate.

I don't know about marijuana, but I wouldn't touch any of it. I already am fighting a cigarette addiction so I can relate to how hard it is to quell an addiction and how it would be better to never start.

Remember the young man who killed a young boy in the bathroom because he was doing it for the devil? He had taken drugs and had experiences with the devil and was convinced that he was doing the right thing. After months in jail, he asked the jury to kill him. He said "If I get out I will do it again." He was Satan's spawn created by drugs.

Just join anything
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 10, 2006 4:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the goofiest thing I ever heard of.

Considering the bloody and oppressive history of religion -- especially the Christian religion -- anyone who joins a church for the reasons you stated has to be an air-head.

Apparently you can't exist without companionship. Try the Rotarians. Or get a dog.

Are you truly an athiest?
Posted by: SufiLizard on Mar 10, 2006 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're truly an athiest, I have a little bit of a problem with your joining a Christian church. I am not an athiest, and yet I think I probably share about 99 percent of your views on Christianity.

I don't believe that Jesus was the "One True Son of God." Personally I think the reference to the "son of God," is in the same sense that we are all children of God. Jesus just was a lot more in tune that most people.

I don't believe that he literally rose from the dead. I think most of the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically and I abhor literalism among modern Christians.

However, I do believe there is a God, or a Force or some kind of metaphysical entity that helps push the arc of the universe toward good (even if that nudge is slow and almost imperceptible at times.)

Therefore I DO consider myself a Christian because I follow the exaple of Christ as best as I understand it. But if you truly ARE a secular humanist (you're in good company with great men like Kurt Vonnegut) I find it a little disingenuous to actually join a Christian congregation.

On the other hand, I think your motivation of trying to steer Christianity toward a more relevant and I would argue "ethical" position on modern issues is exactly what the religion needs right now and I'm working toward a same goal.

And who knows, just as you have a positive impact on your congregation, they may just reciprocate and give you a little something in return. Perhaps you will accidentally get a glimpse of the divine yourself, even if it doesn't turn out to be some ghostly, yet wildly emotional, bearded old man sitting on a cloud as many people's juvenile understanding of divinity would have them believe.

Michael Ignatowski
Posted by: mikeig on Mar 10, 2006 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting to read the many criticisms of Robert Jenson coming from BOTH the traditional Christians and the non-religious atheists. I can personally relate to what he did though. Although I consider myself a humanist, I had very similar motivations for joining a progressive Unitarian Universalists congregation in our area several years ago. I think Robert Jenson's actions are part of a growing trend in our society, a response to what is some people refer to as "a spiritual crisis" - a desire to become part of a supportive moral community based more on reason and compassion than on theological doctrine.

Joining such a community is also a good way to support the progressive side of the moral and political debates taking place in this country. In fact, I would encourage Robert Jenson and others with a similar mind to look into the recently formed "Network for Spiritual Progressives" founded by Michael Lerner (http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/) if you're interested in a national organization of like minded people.

To be honest, I understand where he's coming from
Posted by: Arianna on Mar 10, 2006 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an Agnostic-leaning-towards-Paganism, I joined the youth group from a liberal Anglican church when I was young because I was looking for a space for discussion of things generally not brought up in the lunchroom (and I was from a pretty opressive Catholic family, so discussion was *definitely* not going on there). They were really open and accepting, the group pretty much never actually went to church, we'd debate issues (this was back at the start of the Anglican Church tearing itself apart over gay rights... this church was a gay-positive church), discuss the bible and other religious texts, and they'd have me present the topic from a non-christian standpoint. Through all of our participation (and great adult leaders), it morphed from being a group parents were sending their kids to in hopes of getting them to "believe" to a great discussion and debate group, and some of the most meaningful discussions and debates I've ever had were with them.

It really all depends what group you chose though. To be honest, I've always found Presbyterians a little scary :P

For Shame
Posted by: Timberbee on Mar 10, 2006 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are not a Christian, no matter how you cut it. Your opening statement says as much. You affirm your lack of belief in God, then attest to swearing the opposite. A belief in God, and Christ, is Required to be a Christian. Not a moral stance, and not a political one.

You "Joined" a Church, to write an article, to wear a label, to USE the congregation. This only makes you akin to Pat Robertson, or, anyone else who does such things, it does Not make you a Christian. You rationalize Your choice, trivilize the choices of others by singing out that the Pastor of your Church "Uncerstood" your reasoning. I would argue that it isn't His place to bar your path. You have Sworn an Oath, stated your beliefs. Are they to know you a scheming liar from the get-go? Or are they to hold out hope that, what you say is, ultimately, what is within you, or, at least, what you may yet strive for.

It is a calamity, to seek to change others, yet, we always try. For naught. We are what we are. Cannot be remade, other than by our selves. Religous experience can be at the heart of that, whatever it's nature. Most people will Never experience this. Yet, A great many of us will still seek God, Communion with... Something, outside of ourselves, within, ourselves.

Your quest to enter a congregation and Use them for political gain graces you not at all.

» RE: For Shame Posted by: deeannef
Superfluous?
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 10, 2006 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you don't need to believe in god in call yourself a Christian, you don't need to call yourself a Christian to learn about morality and compassion and whatever else the author hoped to find in church.

a modest proposal
Posted by: Spot on Mar 10, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is there is a difference between religion and philosophy? both are ways of interrogating the world around us, and both are fundamental to the way we interpret and formulate the answers to our questions. as alluded to in the article, the difference between the writer's political philosophy and that of the presbytrerian church he attends is nominal; that is, only contained in names. If we all choose to look at character as demonstrated in actions instead of what people call themselves or appear to be, we will have taken a large step toward equality. whose business is it to tell him he is wrong for equating the name of god with the unexplainable mystery that each of us experiences? or perhaps you know something the rest of us don't?

» RE: a modest proposal Posted by: Robba29
Let's look at Dr. Jensen's employment situation
Posted by: sausage on Mar 10, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He is currently employed as a journalism professor at the Univeristy of Texas, Austin. We know this from the thumbnail bio provided above.

Now while Austin, the state capital, is known as the most "liberal" city in the state, it was once the home base of American Atheists' founder Madalyne Murray O'Hair, it is still Texas. As a Texas city in the postmodern Twenty-first Century it too must be influenced by the tides of irrational monotheistic fundamentalist religion inundating the shores of our common world-wide post-Enlightenment civilization.

I, too, am an atheist. I, too, as I was raised in a traditional Methodist household, am influenced by the teachings of Jesus. And I, too, feel that those teachings have profound universal significance and relevance. However, unlike Dr. Jensen I do not have to worry about employment.

In the past Jensen has taken many controversial positions, to conservatives at least, especially on the occupation of Iraq. I am sure his position at UT-Austin is under constant scrutiny by the forces of reaction both within the univserity setting and without. So while I'm sure his motives for joining the Presbyterian church are sincere, I am likewise sure he foresees a time, in the not to distant future, when church membership becomes a requisite for continued employment at UT-Austin.

Doris
Posted by: Doris Wallace on Mar 10, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this what is termed "fire insurance"?

» RE: Doris Posted by: yesman
Divine Comedy?
Posted by: douglashoyt on Mar 10, 2006 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tension between reality and ridiculous is apparent.

BANANA IN THE EAR
Posted by: charlieparisek on Mar 10, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One can only speculate on Mr Jensen's motive for claiming to be a Christian atheist. I suspect it is a manifestation of the banana-in-the-ear syndrome displayed by the crappy artist demanding attention. "Let's do something provocative'', he thinks, but only ends up looking like an asshole at the exhibition.

Mr Jensen's logic for becoming a 'Christian', though, is specious and his reason duplicitous no matter how he rationalizes it.

He wants to engage people in political discussion but believes America to be "a depoliticized society...where ordinary people in everyday spaces do not routinely talk about politics and underlying values." Apparently America is not hearing him and this is likely because he is not a Christian. After all, 80% of America is Christian and Christians mostly listen only to other Christians (or so Mr Jensen implies). Hmmm. He then hits on the brilliant idea of joining a church in the hope of gaining a larger audience. Meaningful discussion at last!

What a snapper-head.

In the first place, the extent of polarization found in America today is proof of exactly the opposite of a depoliticized society. Not only do people openly talk about politics and affirm individual beliefs, they also wear these beliefs on their shoulders, plaster them on their cars, wrap them around trees, use them as the basis for lawsuits (our great American pastime!) and occasionally stick them right in your face. It's pretty easy to get into a political discussion in America. Whether or not it will be 'meaningful' may depend on your social circle.

Secondly, what precisely is the advantage of being able to "speak within a religious framework"? To preach to the choir? Or are you really saying that your own arguments aren't sound enough to be taken seriously by the majority of Americans (i.e. Christians) so you have to fake it in order to have an audience?

Lastly, if Christians really only listen to other Christians, do you suppose they are so stupid that your arguments will begin to carry weight having now been cloaked in your veil of false faith? Perhaps even Christians can be capable of intelligent thought.

Some of my best friends are Christians. I doubt if they would buy your reasoning or your faith for a nickel.

I-It, I-Thou
Posted by: wildeyes on Mar 10, 2006 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I worry that this move was made not as an honest spiritual search, but as a political move intended to use the church to incite political discussions. Do not get me wrong, I am all for a church engaging in discussions of social justice, as, being a Christian myself, I feel that churches shy away from their responsibility to prophetic witness (ie calling out the wrongs of a society, like with war) or to actions that reflect that understanding of the gospel.

Now I have views opposite of Mr. Jensen, for I would affirm the existence of God (mind you not necessarily as any construction or description... and not necessarily uniquely other, out there and whatnot) and the resurrection of Christ. But I also realize that in my relationship with the church, I can view the church as a means to getting down to politics and heavy moral questions concerning things like war and the death penalty. But this objectifies my relationship with the church -- the church, despite my "insider" status, becomes an object, that is something to be used. On the other hand, I can view the church as it has been thought of for quite some time -- a place where spiritual transformation can occur, where I and others have something to bring, and I may be changed. In this kind of relationship, I become vulnerable, for the church may change me just as much as I change the church. This seems to be the best and most honest kind of relationship with the church.

So, on the one hand, I thank Robert Jensen for this article for it has elicited thought about my own relationship with the church, but, on the other hand, I also hope that he is able to engage his congregation in a more honest and open manner, and not merely as a tool for politics.

otto
Posted by: otto on Mar 10, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I pretty well believe in all the doctrines that you reject there, but I'm still with you. I'm more at home with people who are willing to work and sacrifice for a better world than with "Christians" who go to Church, pray, and work for a better bank account. Churches and theologians have disputed for some time whether there can be "an anonymous Christian", but to me you sound close to that. (By the way, I live in Canada but lived and worked as a priest for 6 years in Texas (Houston) for a lot of the causes you espouse.

Good Political Move
Posted by: gikady on Mar 10, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I consider your move to be prudent but your advertising it to lack wisdom. You need to speak their language, quote their sayings, and live at least an outward show of what they preach. Become one of them and be the best at what they do and say.
And then, slowly, and with great care begin to corrupt their young. Give to the few within their ranks, the ones who have doubts, the ones that have the ability to see beyond the rhetoric, and the sayings and 'beliefs', a better and deeper meaning to their perplexity.
Have them read The Good Book, know it inside and out. And then, show them the other good books.
Best of luck.

» RE: Good Political Move Posted by: twerquie
» RE: Good Political Move Posted by: GreenLibbie
» RE: Good Political Move Posted by: brenda123
You can take your bible
Posted by: Patrissimo on Mar 10, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can take your bible,koran, torah,and every other religious pieces of twisted garbage,shove it,and martyr yourself.Just show your humble dramatics by not forcing
it on innocent people or those of us who believe in the
sacredness of privacy,freedom from religious exploitation,
and the ambiguous,hypocrisy of spewing religious babble
while practicing socio-economic Darwinism and sacrificing humans for your self-righteuosness.

I quit reading
Posted by: katrivers64 on Mar 10, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . when the author wrote "a 2002" poll without naming the poll. I thought the article was kind of interesting up to that point. I hate writing like that. If you were in my research writing class, you, author would get an automatic "F" for not naming sources. Also, Alternet, I've been noticing this more and more lately in your articles. Just say no. We libs are open-minded, not stupid sheep.

» RE: I quit reading Posted by: RobertJensen
olliesmom
Posted by: olliesmom on Mar 10, 2006 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are you wasting valuable time and energy on this non-sense? There are fewer real Christians in churches than diamonds in duck ponds and - if you really wanted a socio-politic religion, you should have joined the Methodists.

» RE: olliesmom Posted by: patti_s
Agnostic Religion
Posted by: Dave Belden on Mar 10, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even the religion of believers includes many aspects that are logically independent of belief: from communal singing to visiting the sick. The normal definitions of religion, at least in the West, which are held by both believers and atheists, hold that belief in the supernatural is central. But what if we create religions that are God-optional or agnostic? Then we can get all the good parts without the authoritarian, intellectually indefensible bad parts. The UUs are certainly offering that option today. If more people like Jensen redefine Christianity as he does, that can also offer a great deal to our society. I gave a sermon called Agnostic Religion last Fall that people might find interesting on this topic: here and another arguing that religion is really about how we behave, not what we believe, here.

» RE: Agnostic Religion Posted by: Dave Belden
Burned at the stake...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Mar 10, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do to my invigorating life as a gadfly, many a church in my past usually finds a way to set me outside the door, kind of like Dino in the Flintstones.

While some whistle past the graveyard, I whistle past the church.

I realize that the ethics of my own life have little sway in discourse with a thundering pulpit, and the need by the followers to save me at any cost.

I have been trying to have rational conversations with conservative christians for the majority of my life. I went through RCIA and was baptized in the catholic church. Lucky goddamn me, my future wife didn't come to one meeting in that process; should have seen that as a sign. I could have saved myself. Oh well.

I watched PTL (Pass The Loot, as it is fondly known in West Texas by heretics such as me).

The one thing I discovered is that if there is a heaven with them perally gates, populated with smiling stepford moonies, I think I will tie myself to the stake, and allow whoever wants to light the son of a bitch to do so.

I know the line will be long to light it, but I intend to sell tickets to this final act of heresy, and donate the proceeds to Kingsford, where perhaps the ashes of my godless soul will provide enough heat to cook another soul in this continued regression into stupidity, self righteousness, insanity, and any number of other things we use to absolve ourselves of the responsibility for the little voice inside of our head that is not god, but our own, telling us to do the right things, because hey, somebody taught us to do the right things, such as parents, guides, hell, other good people that deserve as much fucking credit for creating good people as a God that can be blamed or embraced for bringing me George Walker Bush. If god likes jokes, he/she/it has to be aspirating some Kool-Aid now.

W is one reason to believe in God, or spit in his face in my case.

Light my fucking stake, I aint ready.

Excuse me for having a bad day, God told me to get outside and cut down a few trees that are swaying in the wind over my house, because hurricane season is on its way and good people take care of their trees, especially when the insurance has just gone up and the bastards will fall right onto my bedroom as I pray for another good season of storms, and that my pathetic little life will be spared for yet another year.

Billy Joel was right, only the good die young; me on the other hand will probably have to spend the next hundred damn years listening to the christians so in need of my soul.

Does anyone really think the well of souls needs mine?

» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: reason
» RE: Burned at the stake... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Great post Posted by: ccbite
truth, god, jesus, what have you; lies outside thought, opinions, philosophy....
Posted by: patrick wey on Mar 10, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all a waste of time and energy. This is all just playing with words. There is no meaning to any of this.........jesus, budha and the rest of them remembered and forgotten would just walk by these conversations. Act from inside, we don't need any religion, god cannot be comprehended with words, thoughts - go and get a glass of water for that kid dying of thirst across a continent or two..........

You know, you CAN be a lefty and a Christian.
Posted by: medstudgeek on Mar 10, 2006 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not incompatible. There was a big religious left until the 60s. Jesus spent most of his time providing free healthcare to the poor through healing miracles, after all.

Religion
Posted by: McJulie on Mar 10, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people don't consciously think about this, but when we talk about a given religion we are actually talking about three totally different things: teachings, metaphysics, and culture.

The author has chosen to embrace the teachings (of Jesus) and culture (joining a church) of Christianity, without embracing the metaphysics (son of God and all). This is an unusual choice, but hardly unique. The James Dobsons of the world have chosen to embrace only metaphysics and culture, and ignore most of the teachings.

» GREAT COMMENT!!! Posted by: dirkster42
» Metaphysics? That's *Heresy* Posted by: GreenLibbie
» RE: eligion Posted by: deha
Unitarian Universalism
Posted by: jbetterl on Mar 10, 2006 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a long-time Zen Buddhist and recently found a compatible home in a Unitarian Universalist church. It would be a good thing for you to research, even if you are perfectly happy as a non-believing Christian. It is a non-creedal church which welcomes all religions, atheists, humanists and others.

http://www.uua.org

I have to defend Jan here...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Mar 10, 2006 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People of all stripe are looking for community, the pressing of the flesh that keeps us all from the crush of isolation that sitting behind a computer brings to the game.

Church seems to be the only place left where people get together and talk to one another and reinforce their insecurities and beliefs.

After having christians looking at me with pity for most of my life for being who I am and having them pray for my salvation, I had to move on.

The voice inside my head told me to keep on trying to be a better person. So while I prayed not for money, or to kick the shit out of the team in the other end zone that was doing the same, I was just saying, hey, give me enough faith in myself to kick the shit out of the guys in the other end zone.

I almost always failed, and continued to flog myself with another goddamn round of hating myself for not being more.

Now I have a lifetime of self hatred to undo, placed there squarely by those looks of pity, the thing that was in their eyes, unspoken, and as dangerous as any atomic bomb, right there in my own soul.

In order to do more in my life, I had to give up on the tired old ways of christianity, but I had to continue to play one to keep jobs, and make money. Now we are squarely in the middle of another crisis of the spirit, the soul.

The only way to rectify this thing is to stand up and sing with the moonies, pretending that god guides my life, while my president bombs a sovereign nation into oblivion, while women and children starve to death or even better, get turned into pink mist, while their stronger protectors take to the streets of America in their “God Hates Fags” t-shirts and ban women’s choice, comfortable and cozy, while all of the good things that American people stand for are flushed down the toilet, to prove that god has a plan.

Great fucking plan there goddies. Jan good luck with those you commune with in Austin, let them know for me, that until they start throwing their souls into the pit for those that suffer and die needlessly the world over because of our Christian idealism, supported by Jesus, CEO, that they can go fuck themselves.

Give me back a god that wanders barefoot in the wilderness, Arabic, if you will, who counts not on the kindness of his brothers, but hopes for it.

Not much of a defense Jan, I know, but as far as I can tell I don’t have a leg to stand on anyway.

» RE: Kelly me likes you >:D< ) Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: Kelly me likes you >:D< ) Posted by: kelly.nickell
Wrong
Posted by: heech on Mar 10, 2006 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Such a claim implies that an interpretation of the Bible can be cordoned off as truth-beyond-challenge. But what if the Bible is more realistically read symbolically and not literally?"

That sir, is literary criticism; not Christianity.

"In a depoliticized society such as the United States -- where ordinary people in everyday spaces do not routinely talk about politics and underlying values -- churches are one of the few places where such engagement is possible."

I'm sorry but this is NOT the United States I live in. You must not have much of a social life.

"But what if the Bible is more realistically read symbolically and not literally? What if that's the case even to the point of seeing Christ's claim to being the son of God as simply a way of conveying fundamental moral principles? What if the resurrection is metaphor? What if "God" is just the name we give to the mystery that is beyond our ability to comprehend through reason?"

More literary theory.

You sir, are a Humanist. I suggest dropping the atheist label altogether and admit the noble possibilities inherent in the human mind, the human heart, the human congregation. Moral life is made by us, woman and man, ... no matter what we believe or subscribe to. This just sounds like a new form of rationalized cowardice in the face of aloneness.

» RE: Wrong Posted by: Seabrook
Pelican
Posted by: fungus on Mar 10, 2006 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is very interesting. I was raised as a conservative Catholic, although I haven't practiced in decades. When I'm asked what I believe, I call myself an agnostic pantheist. My big problem with traditional Christianity is that it seems that doctorines such as eternal damnation go against the basic ideas of love and compassion. There's also the problem that if accepting doctorines on faith means that we often have to mistrust and reject our own thoughts and feelings, even when they come from compassionate and searching places. I have, however often wondered who the historic Jesus actually was, and what he would have to say about the ways Christianity has developed. I don't see myself joining a church to explore these questions. I think it's positive that some Churches are looking at their mission as searching for what's real. Anything that gets people to reflect on compassion ethics is a big step forward!

» RE: Pelican Posted by: YogiBear
Oh... brother.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Mar 10, 2006 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Robert Jensen, AlterNet
"My decision to join a church was more a political than a theological act."

Of course it was... that's what the church, all organized religion, is about. Politics.

Nothing to do with God or his prophets. Obviously. Great decision Robert - I figure next you're gonna join the Republicans because you believe in manifest destiny?

Calvin Rolling in his Grave
Posted by: DrC on Mar 10, 2006 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, you're entitled to call yourself a Christian if you like, although 95% of Christians would probably dismiss your self-identification. But what really confuses me is why didn't you think to join a Unitarian Universalist Church where such an ambivalent position might not seem like such a stretch. The fact that you joined a Presbyterian Church, with its historical roots in Calvinist theology, seems a bit silly. It's nice that your pastor doesn't seem to object, though I suspect his lack of objection is grounded in the hope that you won't be an atheist for long. I'm no longer a practicing Catholic because I realized that while there is much I love about Christianity and much I love about Roman Catholic ritual, and certainly much about Catholicism that has been internalized with me and shapes my view of the world...I simply didn't believe. I felt that it was ultimately insulting to other Roman Catholics to identify myself as a Catholic while rejecting the bulk of the Creed, not to mention a significant amount of Church dogma. You may have reconciled this apparent oxymoronic stance in your own mind, but you delude yourself if you think that membership in a Presbyterian Church enhances your political effectiveness given your apparent need to reveal your belief system which is utterly antithetical to the core of Protestant theology: Faith alone saves. Do you really think Christians won't see through that? Do you really think that people will say, "well, he can believe what he likes, but he's a churchgoer, so he can't be all that bad?" While I respect your right to identify yourself as you'd like, I can't say I respect your decision any more than I'd respect someone identifying themselves as a Democrat while believing in trickle-down economics, the elimination of social security, and the abolishing of a minimum wage. Why not just identify yourself as what you are: a secular humanist who believes in universal principles that are necessary for the happiness and flourishing of the human race. There's no shame in that. It certainly won't sound as shamelessly opportunistic as the scenario you've presented.

» RE: Calvin Rolling in his Grave Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: Calvin Rolling in his Grave Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: Calvin Rolling in his Grave Posted by: dirkster42
hi
Posted by: daniel1982 on Mar 10, 2006 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would the Jesus you know say about abortion?

» oops Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: hi Posted by: reason
» RE: hi Posted by: kelly.nickell
Boycotting the church since 2004
Posted by: vicki2001lynn on Mar 10, 2006 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was raised in a conservative southern state by conservative republican parents. I lost faith in all of it, seeing the hypocrisy of conservatives and religious people (up close and personal )all my life. After the last election, I could no longer belong to the church I was raised in, or any other church in my hometown, as I feel they have compromised their values and sold out to the right-wing conservative agenda. I was a member of the United Methodist Church, as is President Bush I believe. After the last election, which was won largely due to the growing influence of right-wing evangelical radicals in the church, I decided to cancel my membership. On the last church newsletter I received, I wrote "please cancel my membership" and mailed it back to the church. As I have not received any further correspondence from them, I am certain they have deleted me from their membership rolls. Maybe they are thinking good riddance, I don't know, it was one of those large megachurches where I was just a number anyway, and didn't know anyone there on any meaningful personal level, so they probably couldn't have cared less.

However I do think that people of conscience who see the way the church is drifting away from its teachings in favor of political goals should send a clear message by boycotting the church. Send your church a note cancelling your membership. Let them know why you are doing so. They need to understand they will lose customers in a big way over this issue. We boycott Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobil; why not the church?

If you love your church and you don't want to leave, okay. I understand. But the next time you get your hands on an offering envelope, instead of money, put a note inside stating that you will cease tithing any more of your money to the church due to the political stand it has taken that goes against the teachings of Christ.

Christians who sit in pews meekly keeping silent, paying their tithes and keeping their opinions to themselves are useless.

You must leave your church, or punish your church by witholding your tithe. That is your responsibility to the church and to your country.

I no longer consider myself a Christian, I suppose I am agnostic, as I don't see any clear resolution to the question of the existence of God. I have taken up a Buddhist meditation practice, and it fills my needs for a spiritual outlet more than adequately. I do not miss the hideous organ music, the sanctuary full of bored people chanting responses without enthusiasm, the sermons with anecdotes I am certain were pulled from a handy-dandy shelf anthology (as I have heard the same ones used over any over - how tiresome), and the lame "contemporary" hymns. Maybe others get something out of all of that that I just don't "get". Frankly, I prefer sleeping in on Sundays...

Christ was about love and compassion
Posted by: harinama on Mar 10, 2006 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, there are a ton of folks out there who are "christians" yet beat their wives/children, advocate power to the Shrub oligarc(sp) so as to keep their consumer lifestyle, who proselytiz and damn outsiders to hell, who want to take away a woman's choice, and are for the death penalty. And they "believe" in God!

Christianity as it stands today would be unrecognizable to Christ if he had the displeasure of witnessing it. As with all things, power breeds egotism and corruption. However, you must separate the religion from those who practice it (much as you must separate the fascist US cabiniet, from the people). There are good Christians out there, who believe more in the basic tenets of Christ's message, than in the formulaic and damning egoism of today's pundits.

I consider myself a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Pagan, and a myriad of other faiths. I do not find that to be hypocritical or wishywashy. I do feel it is an expression of not only the multiplicity of explanations for the spiritual machinations of the universe, but also the commonality of all spiritual experience. There are many ways of looking at Spirit (God), who the heck are we to try to dumb down that eternal wisdom by stating that there is only one culturally specific way?

So, we have an athiest here that calls himself a Christian. I personally find this rather distasteful, as Christ's message was always to look beyond him towards the eternal heavens. However, I do not presuppose to tell anyone how to believe, or how to interpret their own faith. He appears to be a considerate, ethical and compassionate fellow and has a right to follow his faith in whatever way he likes. Many folks join Christian churches for social reasons only (ie. my parents).

I only wish all those who pride themselves in their Christianity would have 1/2 the good qualities of this "athiest". Maybe they could give up on riding the coattails of the power of God, and instead follow in the footsteps of Christ and be humble before the power of spirit. Then sectarianism could diminish and everyone might realize we are all spirit souls with the singular goal of transcendence.

peace

clinker
Posted by: cottontail on Mar 10, 2006 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion." Sir Arthur C. Clarke, CBE

You Are A Church Member, Not A Christian
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 10, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is credited to the Rabbi is not original or new.

Matthew 22 (New American Standard Bible)

34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

A Christian is a Christ Follower, and to be such is first to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and God in the flesh. I didn't say it, Jesus did.

Not a prophet.
Not an Apostle.
Not a Bishop.
Not a Priest.
Not some televangelist.

All heresy in the church begins with a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ. Any church should welcome all who wish to come, but allowing non-believers to become members is crazy.

The other great problem is that Jesus claimed to be not one way or a way, but the ONLY way to a restored relationship with God, the primary purpose of the Church and Jesus earthly ministry, death and resurrection. There is no allowance for mix and match religion.

Like before, I didn't say it. It's in the book.

» Re-Heretics Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: e-Heretics Posted by: yesman
» "the book" is a work of fiction Posted by: doctorsquared
try these!
Posted by: momly on Mar 10, 2006 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I owe everyone an apology
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Mar 10, 2006 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I meant to defend to Robert, not Jan, yet I cannot hold myself out of the bar ditch long enough to rant anymore.

I respectfully ask the editors of AlterNet to remove my comments, and strike them from the record, as they are inflammatory and as such have no relevance here in their divisive hateful rhetoric.

My apologies to all.

KN

» Meh Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: I owe everyone an apology Posted by: kelly.nickell
Is it really this simple?
Posted by: cbreaux on Mar 10, 2006 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When my son was about fourteen -- raised Unitarian Universalist -- someone asked him if he was an atheist. He had just returned from a front porch discussion with a very devout Christian mother of one of his young friends. I was curious to know how he'd answered this question posed by one who was born-again and bible-wise.

His answer?

"No, Mom, I guess I'm not. There's nobody up there not to believe in."

I'm not sure that I've ever heard it stated better.

John Wilkins
Posted by: johnwilkins1672 on Mar 10, 2006 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Robert - as a priest I commend you for your act. You might be one of the first to write about it, but nuances are fairly common.

In my liberal "republican" episcopal parish we have one fundamentalist who is a union-member and an avowed socialist. Three of the elderly women, who have been in the parish for 50 years, don't believe in the afterlife. Another older man who doesn't believe in the virgin birth opposes gay marriage. Practically, I'm working for affordable housing in an interfaith, integrated clergy group; sending money to a school that teaches girls orphaned by AIDS in Tanzania; and once a year I visit Albany to advocate for the rights of rural migrants. What is certainly true is that most anti-religion liberals have little idea about what mainline congregations think or do.

The reasons you give are preached in about 60-80% of 60% of most mainline clergy any given Sunday. I preach about values - how capitalism undermines out attention to others; how investing in persons is more important than investing in bombs. I'm not unusual. Lots of Episcopal Clergy are like this. A few are more radical than I am. And even those who have more conservative interpretations of scripture have social justice sympathies.

But unlike other organizations, the church has much more political diversity. This is not so much true among the clergy [who are, at least in the Episcopal church, more liberal than journalists - there is the old joke "what separates the Republicans from the Democrats in the Episcopal church? The altar rail], but I have Republicans [granted - they are all moderate ones] and conservative Democrats and radicals. What we are doing in church has more to do with creating a location that hs safe, where people find it easy to care for one another.

I would also say, that what you are doing is smart. In ten years, many mainline churches will be closing. Conservatives will say that it is because liberalism has taken over mainline theology. I say its because the worship is dull. And even Liberals prefer mass media and culture to hymnody and worship.

If liberals decided to reinvigorate those churches as progressive witnesses, they might do some practical good in their communities. They could appoint their own pastors; they could have worship as they see fit.

If I had about 15 young progressives in my own parish, the entire dynamic of the place would change. But until they unshackle themselves from their instinctive anti-institutional biases, this opportunity will be missed.

Unfortunately, most progressives understand religion as a list of incorrect facts about the world, or as a form of delusion. alas, one could say the same thing about a host of other ideologies that are firmly secular. Religion is much more ambiguous. It conveys limits to human power [perhaps helpful in our environmental condition]; it offers a place for human sympathy; it can offer rules for engagement. But more distinctively - it offers a short cuts. Agnostics bravely reinvent their ethic personally - good for them. Religion makes things simple. Liberals know that this is a curse. But it could also be a blessing. {god sez - treat the planet with respect} . Think of religion as a medium, not the message. The message, perhaps, is up to us.

Perhaps it is time to reinvent the medium.

» RE: John Wilkins Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: John Wilkins Posted by: mystictrek
» RE: John Wilkins Posted by: Doubtom
Not all Xtians are the same
Posted by: zinnia on Mar 10, 2006 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this, and the following comments, to be very interesting. First, I respect what the author is doing; it makes some sense to me, actually, since I grew up in a place where everyone was expected to be part of some sort of church, and where churches provide a lot of the social services for the community, and a lot of the sociopolitical conversation. I also think it was good that he seems to have been upfront about his beliefs and intentions to the congregation, though I'm a bit surprised that they allowed him to join. It would have been disingenuous to try to join covertly, and then try to influence people that way.

However, I find some of the comments disturbing; it seems that some (hopefully a small, vocal minority) of Alternet readers are simply hostile to religion, and think of all Christians and other religious adherents to be some sort of mindless, deluded monolith. Why so hostile? This was also apparent in the response to the Michael Lerner interview recently; some people seemed to interpret Lerner as saying that all progressives/liberals need to join a church and become religious to bring them to "our" side (which I don't think was what he was saying at all).

I can understand that some folks have been burned by religious people or organizations in their past, and I definitely know that people continue to use religion to justify horrible crimes, bigotry, and discrimination. But, people are also religiously motivated to do great good, and to try to connect with those different from themselves. This tells me that religions as social institutions are inherently neither good nor bad. And, since a huge portion of the world is religious in some way, it would sure be useful to understand religions if we are to get along with people, rather than dismissing people who believe that way as sheep who aren't worth your time.

Please reconsider your position
Posted by: acooper on Mar 10, 2006 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a reasonably clear statement of a fairly common hypocricy. How to respond?

I also took Jensen's path at one time - and later, in recognition of the common core values of all religions, described myself as a Christian-Muslim-...etc.
But to join any religion does lend support to the authority claimed by its leaders and for its scripture; and that is the problem.

The fundamental evil of all deistic religions is not their "core values" but their "essential blasphemy". They all attribute to humans and/or human creations the authority of what they call "god", and by doing so deny their adherents the moral autonomy that they claim "god" gave them.

Throughout history this has always been used to provide a supply of morally dependent Zombies to support one or other of the competing power structures of the day. So to do anything that legitimizes any organized deistic religion may be dangerous.

So I would strongly urge Jensen to reconsider his position.

Unitarian Universalist
Posted by: mdwoade on Mar 10, 2006 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the comments that "you are a church member not a Christian", and that you should have considered the Unitarian Universalist (UU) Church. This reminds me of the Christian minister who said that he did not really believe in the beliefs of his Church, but he found mouthing the words let him do good works. To me, there is a basic dishonesty here. My suggestion is to attend the church, perhaps even join the congregation, do your networking, be political. Just do not call yourself Christian. Most non-credal Christian churches are happy to accept you if you are willing to be persuaded that Jesus was the son of God. I just would not call myself a Christian till you "convert". I think the people in your church will respect you even more for you ambivalence. Personally, I am a UU, and I find the majority of Calvinist doctrine distasteful. My guess is that the American Presbyterian church is not very Calvinist now anyway. Good luck on your compromise!

When all Christians were atheists.
Posted by: dirkster42 on Mar 10, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Romans often referred to Christians as "atheists" because they wouldn't worship the emperor. The question isn't really "do you believe in God or not," but "what God do you believe in," or as the theologian Paul Tillich put it, what is your "ultimate concern." I've found that the precise language we use is of less importance than the underlying meaning. I've been in some theology classes where I've walked out thinking, "oh, so I'm an atheist after all," or had discussions with atheists where it's clear that we're using different terminology to describe a similar position. I came to see the whole theist/atheist distinction as a bit of a red herring years ago, but I find that that puts me out of step with most of the surrounding culture, for whom that distinction seems to mean a lot.

» Dear Doubtom, Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: Dear Doubtom, Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Dear Doubtom, Posted by: dirkster42
This struck a chord, thanks
Posted by: infostat on Mar 10, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My partner, raised atheist, and I (former christian, but agnostic for many years) went, on a whim, to our city's queer christian church (MCC) for midnight mass this christmas eve. We have gone back every sunday night since. No, we didn't have a conversion experience, we weren't born again. But we find the church's message of social justice -- its tireless work of feeding the hungry and clothing the poor, its genuine welcoming of all persons no matter where they come from or what they believe, its insistency that if we want to change our lives, we must change our practice i.e. commit social justice, care for and hold in regard the least among us -- we weren't finding these messages put into action in such concentration any other place in our lives. We were compelled and challenged. And yes, this church is very political. Its the most satisfying progressive community I've found in San Francisco. We're still pretty squeamish about all the God stuff but Jesus truly was a radical.

clinker
Posted by: cottontail on Mar 10, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's an intereting quote from George Carlin: When it comes to bullshit---big time, major league bullshit---you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion." He said the notion of God is "the greatest bullshit story ever told." The invisible man, he says, "has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do--and if you do any of these 10 things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you."

» RE: clinker Posted by: joanmo
» RE: clinker Posted by: reason
» RE: clinker Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: clinker Posted by: johnwilkins1672
» RE: clinker Posted by: johnwilkins1672
» RE: clinker Posted by: reason
» RE: clinker Posted by: micki
Oakjoan
Posted by: joanmo on Mar 10, 2006 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author's statements at the beginning of his article about American citizens' views about Christianity (most regularly attend church, think of themselves as Christians, etc., etc.). I'd take these testimonies with a big grain of salt since a large percentage of Americans also believe that Saddam Hussein arranged for 9/11 and know much more about Brittany Spears than their government or their rights as citizans. People will say what they think pollsters want to hear. I know lots of people and only one of them goes to church and 2 more go to synagogue.

Nature of God
Posted by: jwg on Mar 10, 2006 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if "God" is just the name we give to the mystery that is beyond our ability to comprehend through reason?

What else could he/she/it be?

» RE: Nature of God Posted by: heech
I'm a white male Christian even in this rightwing dominated government
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 10, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and boy I must say the rightwingers sure go out of their way to over-legislate on morality to the point that they're more AGNOSTIC than the folks they accuse of hating religion ! Isn't GOD supposed to be the deciding force on who gets punished/rewarded on morality?

It's time for the secular and Christians fed up with the religious "right" abusing religion to shut up, put aside differences, and join forces in taking back religion and America from the rightwing scumbags before our country completes the faster than Rome fallout !

Interesting
Posted by: midge on Mar 10, 2006 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the author made a number of good points; in particular the one about transcending religious boundaries and working towards common goals; defining religious/spiritual paths (and lack of such) and focusing too much on their differences does them all a disservice when they have so many things in common and when there is so much space to move freely among them and pick up new insights, and I think this is one of the things he is trying to do.

That being said, I cannot understand the hostility towards religion that I see here other than the suspicion I have that some were hurt by it in some way, in which case I can't say I blame them. But hearing arguments that claim religion is irrational and unreasonable and in the same argument call all its followers zombies, sheep, drones, bigots, etc. confuses me, because it is just as irrational and unreasonable to characterize a group of people this way and apply the exception to the whole (i.e, some religious people are bigots or hypocrites=all religious people are bigots or hypocrites). It also doesn't show much of an attempt to understand religious people. There's an old saying that goes, "don't judge a man til you've walked two moons in his moccasins" and that certainly applies here. For some people, people who have little money, limited access to health care, poor housing, few luxuries, etc., life can be pretty difficult and religion is one of the most powerful sources of comfort and solace, not only in the communal aspect it provides, but in the religion itself. To use Christianity as an example, Jesus himself came from the lowliest of conditions, and grew up to be a friend to and advocate of the poor, the sick, the oppressed. He surrounded himself with some of the most despised members of society-prostitutes, lepers, beggers. That's something that speaks very powerfully to a lot of people (myself included). As progessives, I do not see why we have a problem with that. These are just my observations here, but it seems that a lot of the comments here come from people with pretty comfortable lifestyles and are out of touch with those who lack such comfort. Of course, there are many other reasons to be religious. Our individualistic consumer culture doesn't meet everyone's emotional/spiritual needs, for one thing. And then there's what I think is the main reason: shaping our worldview on cold, hard facts alone is not enough. There is so much we simply don't know; we are far, far away from knowing everything and I don't think we even can know everything. We're always going to ask that question "why", and such a worldview cannot provide all of the ansers, but religion/spiritualy can give a person room to ponder the possibilities and give a sense of meaning and fulfillment and structure to their lives, and as long as people keep wondering why, and needing this fulfillment, there will be a place for it. Plus, we are emotional beings. I personally do not believe there is some sort of a dichotomy between reason and emotion, where the former is superior and the latter is inferior. The are both necessary for survival, and they usually work together. In fact, religion, for me, fulfills not only my emotional needs but my intellectual needs as well, since it prompts me to think thoughts deeper than I imagined I was capable of thinking. I pondered and pondered for years, in a very logical and reasonable fashion, and it did not push me farther away from religion, it brought me closer to it, and I suspect there are many who have done the same. We are far from the sheep or drones we're made out to be. Religion/spirituality is not, for most people, a complete, error-proof, solid set of answers, it is a lifelong journey. Sorry for the long, slightly off-topic rant, it's just that reading these comments made me feel I had to get that off my chest.

» No, I'm not going to flame you. Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: Interesting Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Interesting Posted by: deha
» RE: Interesting Posted by: mim
A Christian by the grace of God
Posted by: kbene620 on Mar 10, 2006 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the NIV,

1 John 4:1-6: 1"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."

Matthew 7:13-14: 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Kimberly Benefiel

I agree
Posted by: yesman on Mar 10, 2006 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . with the basis of your decision. Religion does not have to be about accepting some set of propositions as true and unquestionable (despite the fact that you know they can't be literally true). The emphasis on accepting a creed as the primary religious act requires (at least in the case of the most popular creeds) a committment to irrationality and blind faith--a most dangerous requirement, as we saw so dramatically illustrated on September 11, 2001.

Of course, other religions--outside the three Western monotheistic faiths (Christianity, Judaisim & Islam)--don't always place such emphasis on credal purity. For instance, one can legitimately be a Hindu while being a devotee of any number of deities and having a variety of spiritual beliefs. Buddhists also are not particularly concerned about whether one adopts a "Buddhist identity" or not. Most neo-pagan religions don't require strict adherence to a set of fixed beliefs, or the exclusive worship of a particular god conceived in a particular way. Perhaps that's why most of the "religious" violence and oppression in the world come from the three religions that DO make a big deal of out one's creed and religious identity.

I also agree with your hope that one day identifying oneself as a Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim or a pagan or a whatever) will be a matter of little consequence. When being a Christian simply means that one is following a particular spiritual path or practice--rather than some other path which may be more meaningful for others but is no less valuable than one's own--then perhaps the world will be free of the violence, oppression and discord which has characterized the history of Western monotheism thus far.

. . . . w o w . . . .
Posted by: 2rivers on Mar 10, 2006 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well i guess im latecoming to this original article, but i did read most of the responses and i have to say, this is scary! all this religiousness! Have we, collectively as a species, lost the ability to go to that sacred place inside, where All answers are to how to be a 'true' human being? does everybody (almost) need to subscribe to sum church/priest to get told how to behave??? jesus ! no pun intended .

Older than religion
Posted by: YogiBear on Mar 10, 2006 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Christianity)

Not only is this idea common in religious texts, but christianity appropriated it from far older idealologies: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" is Confucionist.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

And now you'll never need a church again
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Mar 10, 2006 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus said "Don't make a God out of me,seek the Father Within." He also said " Truly I say to You, know that You are gods." That 'In God there is Eternal Life'
Translation:
Because a messenger has the Truth as his message,he is not a God but a humble servant delivering a message that the Power of That which we call God is Within You,Me and Everything,Everywhere.
Because this 'God Energy' is the very thing that all things are and will ever be,We ARE ALL GODS. That Energy is the reason Everything Is. That Energy knows no Death,as such neither do we. That's the Truth of the Resurection
This means we ALL have the ability to tap into these quailties we can ascribe to what a Creator may have. Qualities
like Compassionate Understanding, Infinate Patience,Great
Peace,Unerring Wisdom and the gift of the Tolerance of a Mountain.
These gifts we all have and always had them. We are all
blessed with life without end,because we are Living Energy
that comes from the Energy that Creates All That Is.
This has Always been so,no matter what race,no matter what religion,no matter what Nation. The Creation is Lightyears Beyond them. It is the Power of All That Is.
Now we decide just what will be that thing we serve without question. The World of greed and plunder,killing everything for a paycheck. Or aiding the gving nature of The Lifeforce and in doing so Raising Civilization to great undreamed of heights.
You can make the change that's needed here. All you have to do is 'BE IT." The afore mentioned Truth is your's to do with as you will. You can believe it,or not. Reject it or have the Faith. Because it simply IS, it requires none of that to have Factual Realtiy. But to 'Know It' all you need to do is,go to some high place,look out at the lands and the sky. At the stars and the Milkey Way and be willing to say 'Something Greater the me had one big Beautiful Idea.' I'm glad to be sharing it with you.

» Where do you get these ideas? Posted by: brenda123
The Church of Mortality
Posted by: fairleft on Mar 10, 2006 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's room for a new religion that faces facts and asks us to be our best because of those facts.

My brother in Christ
Posted by: hera62 on Mar 10, 2006 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a lifelong Roman Catholic and also as a committed theologian within the catholic community, I can only say to prof. Jensen: I respectfully salute you as my brother in Christ. Was it not Jesus himself who said that his true followers are not those who say "Lord, Lord" but those who are doing the will of his Father? If Christians are those who accept the way of the Christ as their way (and they are: before anyone called us Christians we were called 'people of the Way'), I simply cannot understand all those who commented that Robert Jensen cannot be a Christian. My dear sisters and brothers: orthopraxy (i.e. the right way of acting) was, for Jesus Christ himself, always paramount. As far as I know the obsession with orthodoxy (literally: the right way of worshipping, which only later on took on the meaning of "the right doctrine") dates from a later period, when Christianity spread and had to find its place in the Greek-Roman world and its philosophies - and had to cope with all the different interpretations of Christ's life and teachings that sprang up within Christianity itself.

Therefore: if someone chooses to join the community of Christ's followers because he endorses Christ's teachings en acknowledges the divine Love that lies at the heart of them (as John the apostle wrote: "God is love"), let no-one presume to deny him (or her!) the right to call himself "Christian". The great German theologian Karl Rahner was the first one to give the name "anonymous Christians" to those honest people who do not belong to any Christian community but who do devote their lives to justice, peace and compassion. So all that professor Jensen has done is to stop being "anonymous" by joining a Christian community. And indeed, I heartily embrace as my sister and brother in Christ any honest person who may refuse to say "Lord, Lord" (and thus would qualify as an atheist) but does live according to the will of God.

Wise Thoughts
Posted by: Aussie on Mar 10, 2006 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations Robert,

Your solution for reducing the problems religion brings provide much food for thought.
You've obviously thought this issue through carefully and I commend you for your insight and courage for bringing it to our attention here.
I would love to think your idea could take off.

Ron Shaw (Perth, Australia)

» I don't get it..... Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: I don't get it..... Posted by: kelly.nickell
Sweet Jesus
Posted by: reason on Mar 10, 2006 6:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If someone says "Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly" is that a sin? I read that on a blog and can't forget it. lol

Profiling...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Mar 10, 2006 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suppose Derkackz is always sending subliminal messages, I got one today after dragging two tires in the bar ditch for most of my morning.

He linked to a New Yawker article that has relevance here:

Troublemakers

The moving target of christianity creates the most anger and knee jerk in my life and I have the bruises to prove it.

Give the article a read, it speaks volumes about how many of us wrestle this five hundred pound marshmallow called god.

Now, back to my yard to take on the raccoons knocking over my trashcans. Perhaps I will wear a hockey mask into the wild tonight while hoisting the chainsaw over my head.

I bet that church in Austin would love that look. I am truly a progressive nut.

» RE: Profiling... Posted by: reason
» RE: Profiling... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Profiling... Posted by: Sojourner
This is great
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Mar 10, 2006 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are articles on Talk2action.org about how Christian right activists join mainstream and liberal churches in the U.S. and Canada in order to divide and conquer these congregations with right-wing politics. It's how the Southern Baptist Convention changed from a moderate church-state separation advocacy organization to a wingnut launch pad for the right. So what the author is doing is very much what is needed as a counterbalance.

Can't fault your motives
Posted by: apost8 on Mar 10, 2006 10:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand your reasons for seeking out the community you're in. I'm not disputing that Christians work for valuable causes. What people need to realize is that Christianity isn't about promoting peace or justice, but promoting God and Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth's most passionate cause was promoting his own divinity. His last message to his followers was not to do justice, but to shove his message down the throat of everyone across the world. Your motives are commendable, but you should reconsider donating your time and energy to an organization dedicated to promoting human history's arguably biggest lie.

Wrong. You're thinking of evangelical, not universalist
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Mar 10, 2006 10:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christianity. What many people commenting here don't understand is the difference between evangelical and universalist Christianity. Evangelical Christianity believes in spreading the gospel, top-down heirarchy, literal adherance to scripture. While evangelicals are not always fundamentalist and are sometimes composed of liberal or moderate political folks, fundamentalists are always evangelical and never universalist. Universalist Christians may be conservative or liberal politically (usually they lean liberal or moderate though), but they believe in a non-literal interpretation of the bible, a symbolic interpretation, individual freedom to interpret and believe as one chooses, and a universal acceptance and tolerance for other religions and other sects of Christian thought and belief. Most mainstream non-fundamentalist churches are universalist (Methodists, Presbytarians, Lutherans) and even many Catholics consider themselves universalist in outlook. Pentacostals and other fundamentalists, Baptists and born-agains are evangelical. This is important to know when trying to understand Christianity in America, and a lot of lefty religious skeptics would be comfortable socializing with universalist Christians and should not mistake them for evangelical or fundamentalists that carry the characteristics that most liberals dislike.

only a professor...
Posted by: kingfelix on Mar 10, 2006 11:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
could come up with something so stupid. only someone who prizes reason could be seduced by such irrational arguments.

the part i liked was the section about joining the church because America is a very religious nation. um, great logic. and those who appreciate the threat to the Republic that faith-based politics pose, are we meant to join the church, too? do we carry for and against banners and counter-demonstrate against ourselves?

i can understand why right-wing "family values" people go to church, even if they don't really believe or live by Jesus' teachings, because the churches they attend are spreading their repugnant republican ideas, but for progressives who don't believe in God, what is the point in flocking together with a bunch of superstitious folks on a Sunday? you may as well make an argument that because America likes sports so much, we should all go to baseball even if we're not interested in it, and if lots of non-baseball fans attend baseball, maybe baseball will change to reflect the needs of the non-baseball enjoying spectator.

This article isn't about your problems tolerating religion.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Mar 10, 2006 11:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You misunderstood everything in this article simply because you want nothing to do with religion. That's your right. We should all be fighting to preserve everyone's rights in America to do as they please in the pursuit of happiness without harming others. So stop putting people down for doing that. I'm sorry you don't get it. I think this article is profound. I have a different personal viewpoint on religion from the author, but I think the author is brave, honest, insightful, and making important social changes happen. I celebrate it and I'm glad people are starting to think outside the old lefty boxes that have chained us to being unable to counter the intolerant rightists all these years. This is great.

What's the matter with Kansas?
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Mar 10, 2006 11:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We abandoned the U.S. outback politically, culturally. There's no jobs there too. Then we're upset because the churches there provided an infrastructure for those people to have community? We don't even have to understand their religion to understand we better understand what is going on and why and what to do about it, before it rolls us all over into a hellish nightmare of oppression.

No evidence God exists
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 11, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amazing to listen to people who have bought into these elaborate fantasies that some supernatural being is watching over them. There is not a shred of evidence that such a being exists. It's completely insane to believe in such an entity.

No wonder religious people continue to slaughter each other around the world.

» RE: No evidence God exists Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: No evidence God doesn't exist Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» No wishful thinking, please Posted by: Moonray
Religion and Social Responsibility
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Mar 11, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that one way in which religion can be destructive from a political point of view is that it saps up the very emotions that would otherwise drive someone to try and affect political change. Of course everyone agrees with the same general morals, but it is what people do in practice that is important. It is doubtful a church will admit any political discourse of substance, apart from truisms regarding concern for the poor, being a good person, etc. and perhaps encouraging volunteer work which, while helpful, falls short of facing up to the cases of our problems; and combined with a belief that one is good and doing right – that one has fulfilled one’s social responsibility – it seems the effect is the same. It is copout, a way precisely to escape social responsibility while keeping one’s conscience intact.

Russell also said, and in the same book, “Religion belongs to the infancy of human reason.”

Let’s be honest.

A Liberal Church
Posted by: rrk1 on Mar 11, 2006 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised to learn of the existence of such a liberal church in of all places Texas. But then Austin isn't really Texas. The whole idea of a moral and spiritual community is extremely attractive to many people, including me, but all religions ultimately have some core beliefs that must be accepted without challenge, and therein lies the problem I have always, as an adult, had with the noise of solumn assemblies.

This church sounds more Unitarian Universalist than Presbyterian in its willingness to accept someone who isn't even a deist, let alone a Christian.

Christian core beliefs I thought were the divinity of Christ, his immaculate conception and ressurection from the dead. I don't accept any of that, but were there a church near me that didn't require me to recite all that nonsense every week I might even consider joining it.

» RE: A Liberal Church Posted by: mim
» RE: A Liberal Church Posted by: mim
Wrong denomination
Posted by: bookwoman on Mar 11, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the things for which Mr. Jensen is looking are to be found in another "Christian" denomination. This would be the Unitarian Universalist Church. They believe that Jesus lived, and they believe in his teachings. However, they are not Trinitarians and, therefore, do not believe Christ was a God. However, they do follow his teachings because they feel he had much to say about the way human beings should treat each other. They have been leaders in many of the humanitarian and equality movements in this country. Perhaps Mr. Jensen would like to rethink his life as a Presbyterian (as kind and Christian as this church is) and find himself a Unitarian church where he would probably feel much more comfortable.

Unitarian Universalist Church
Posted by: jak on Mar 11, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As one responder noted, the UU church is an organization--'Faith' if you will--which promotes and practices an open search for the true meaning of each members' own theology. This is done openly with no preconceived notion of where that search may ultimately lead.

Within the UU church there are pagans, agnostics, jews, christians...and even atheists. There is no dogma. There is no set of laws or beliefs to which one must subscribe. Rather there is a Covenant or set of Principals to which we all subscribe, to wit:
# The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
# Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
# Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
# A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
# The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
# The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
# Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

I would encourage the author--and anyone else who wants a framework for their beliefs which do not 'fit' within a dogmatic faith--to visit a UU church next Sunday. No one will be offended if they choose to not become a member. My family attended First UU in Nashville for years, pledging support/money and taking part in the various programs, for years before becoming voting members.

It just seems to be a more open, unrestrictive community for the author to continue his Search among like-minded people. It also provides a framework and a world-wide association for support of exactly what he appears to be seeking...a much more honest approach than just calling himself a 'Christian' or 'Presbyterian' without accepting ANY of the tenets.

Christian and Atheist? No problem
Posted by: peaceangel on Mar 11, 2006 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it may seem impossible within orthodox Christianity, it is perfectly reasonable in alternative Christianity. i.e. Gnosticism. Insteed of taking them literally, one can analyze their writings in light of modern psychology and - it works! The message of Jesus is a call to become psychologically whole - to awaken to a consciousness that unites all aspects of the inner self and transcends self to connect to reality. What divides us, is the demiurge, the Ego, which creates a phantasm world of fear and death. By awakening to the Christ within, we overcome the Ego and are reunited with the pleroma - the fullness of life. Jesus' message was psychology not theology!

What would have happened
Posted by: Lillith on Mar 11, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would have happened if we didn't kill Jesus and just invited him in for some tea and cookies...and he got to live a long and boring life...

We probably would have had the Internet in 600AD to start with.

Rinse cycle...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Mar 11, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we again engage in the process of proving and disproving at a rapid stacato the presence of nothing and everything, Karl Rove has won again.

Progressive thought and fluid movement into our own futures has hit the brick wall yet again. Karl has to be laughing his ass off at the perfect political weapon, used to great effect through the passage of time in stopping movements in their tracks.

We are arguing over something that has no solution, while whatever dastardly deeds one can imagine are being drawn up and played out to one end: To put America into its next global conflict. We the people are being fed a steady diet of moral indignation to tear apart as our next meal, while the right starves us down economically (while looking morally), preparing us for our next patriotic cause. They'll reinstate the draft, by forcing the young out of the educational machine to build the army needed for this cause. They'll raise the interest rates, and remove the value from our homes, slowly, carefully. They'll extend our credit until it eats into a dwindling home value. They'll hold us on the ropes and force us to accept a new patriotic endeavor, bought and paid for in human life, under-privileged human life - our sons and daughters. They'll ask credit companies to forgive our debt if only we will follow blindly their leadership into this next great war. They'll tell us it is for god and country.

We will believe them, as evidenced in a continued futile attempt to define the shapeless face of god. The real god of the right will lurk in the shadows, collected in our blood, paid for in our faith, and distributed to those that worship it to all ends.

And we will justify it all in a religious hall somewhere.

Until the wall is penetrated, progress will end just as it has ended each time before in the redistribution of the spoils, and the redrawing of the lines. We will then start the process all over again, carried over into the next generation as forgotten history, while the only history that carries forward is the one that allows us all to walk into a church for political reasons, instead of walking into a library for spiritual ones.

Evangelize, baptize, repeat.

» RE: inse cycle... Posted by: Lillith
» RE: inse cycle... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: inse cycle... Posted by: Lillith
» RE: inse cycle... Posted by: reason
» RE: inse cycle... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: inse cycle... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: inse cycle... Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE:RINSE CYCLE Posted by: picket
» RE: inse cycle... Posted by: reason
Doh!
Posted by: Artkansas on Mar 11, 2006 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to do social action and social justice. Do it. Don't look for political change in a religious institution.

Given your motives, it's highly surprising that you didn't choose the Unitarian church which would give you the social action and be much more amenable to your real spiritual stance. There are also other Christian churches better known for their social work. Presbyterian is not the first word that comes to my mind when social justice is mentioned.

Because when you get down to it, being a Christian is all about believeing that Christ is your personal saviour. That you are ignoring that fact indicates perhaps that you just don't get it.

Good luck. I guess you just have to work through that part of the problem. Good luck and good karma.

the reality of meaning
Posted by: poetdowns on Mar 11, 2006 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter what the name of the church is, joining (or going to) a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going into McDonald's makes you a hamburger.
I don't care how many people think about whatever, i'm not interested in numbers 'cause they don't mean anything.
The book of Acts chapter 11 will tell you where the word "Christian" comes from.
Real christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship. That's what makes it different from everything else. It's a relationship between you and God. That's it. And you either love God or you don't, you obey Him or you don't, you listen to Him or you don't. It's real simple and there's no half measures. Just like you can't be "a little bit pregnant".

Poet

» Well poetdown, since you know everything Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
The point of the article
Posted by: dkm on Mar 11, 2006 4:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There seems to be a lot of digression and misunderstanding, some of it deliberate, I think.

The point that the author made was the a Christian is someone who accepts the philosophy of Christ about how to behave and interact with other people and the world in general and translates that acceptance into action. Christianity is defined by what you do, not what you believe. "Jesus es verbo, no sustantivo." (Jesus is a verb, not a noun.) Whether one accepts one of the prevailing theologies associated with Christ (Remember that there are a large number in existence today as well as a large number that have gone extinct due to the power of their opponents) is beside the point. One can claim to believe utterly without doubt in any of the prevailing Christian philosophies, but that is meaningless if the way one lives does not reflect the teachings of Christ. By the same token, one can reject all the theological characterizations of Christ, but be a good Christian by living in a way compatible with Christ's teachings. This is the main point of the article.

The secondary point, the reason for joining a Christian group, is that being associated with such a group enhances the effects of one's efforts tremendously. This allows one to be much more effective in one's attempt to make the world a better place to live, the main thrust of Christianity.

religionequalsmythology
Posted by: religionequalsmythology on Mar 11, 2006 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A wise man once wrote, and I paraphrase, those who fail to learn history are destined to repeat it. Mythology went away when people realized how foolish it was. Science has shot innumerable holes in "God" theories that sooner or later the entire world will stop wasting time, energy and resources on this scam called "faith." Our country will be among the slowest to shake their theory of an imaginary friend that can solve all problems and is constantly watching because our government is firmly entrenched in this ruse.
Imagine, it's been 150 years since Darwin wrote "Origin of the Species" and we still have a leader who regularly converses with "God."
Most Americans see this as a reasonable and laudable way to solve one's problems. What strikes me as ironic is the average American who condones and encourages this behavior would want to lock up a leader who spoke to "God" by way of his personal ipod or hair dryer.
Only by encouraging scientific discourse can we tackle the problems that face us today.

» RE: religionequalsmythology Posted by: religionequalsmythology
You're not a Christian, You're an Idiot
Posted by: Uki_Y on Mar 11, 2006 6:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a perfectly unreadable bunch of blabble. My first thought when I started reading this article, was why didn't this person join the Unitarian Universalist Church? So I thought, well, I'd better see where he lives, maybe there's not one around there. Then I saw this guy is in Austin, and I immediately thought to myself... there's no way in hell Austin does not have a UU church. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? Now, Presbyterians are not Baptists or Assemblies of God types, but they are pretty narrow-minded, as are most Christian religious organizations. UU's are one of the most open-minded, liberal religious sects out there -- Quakers also come to mind. I'm not a member because (a) I don't believe in God, nor do I feel a need to surround myself with people who do, and (b) I don't need to be saved, I already know my reason for being here. But if I ever get all wacky again and decide to join a religious group, it'll be either the UU's or the Buddhists for me.

By The Way
Posted by: Uki_Y on Mar 11, 2006 7:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just in case some smart*** wants to point it out to me, I know there really is no such thing as the "Buddhist religion", or "The Buddhists", as if I was talking about "The Catholics". I also know that Buddhism is not so much a religion but more of a philosophy of life.

Well poetdown, since you know everything
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Mar 11, 2006 8:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suppose you know that your Bible is idolatry and that you are worshipping something that was written by a bunch of priests with political agendas rather than following the actual life and words of Jesus who wanted you to experience your relationship with God directly, not through the middle men of your distorted Bible. But you know it all so facts won't sway you. You can tell everybody else how to live or how to be a Christian, or whether they can be what they want to be. You can sit in judgment along with all of the other modern day Pharisees who enjoy their smugness.

The Church of What's Happening Now
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 12, 2006 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With apologies to the late Flip Wilson

I find it strange that if one even mentions the Christian faith in a tangential way a firestorm of anti-christian and anti-faith rants come pouring forth. This is not unique to AlterNet and seems endemic in the liberal/progressive community and makes a farce of the 'tolerance' espoused by all of those who identify as somewhere left of center. Is this any different than the hostile actions of some churches and christians toward people who believe differently?

Many people who are Christ followers share a tremendous amount of common ground with progressives but are driven away by the open, tactile and constant hostility projected at them by some on the left. Tom Fox- a Christian peace activist working in Iraq, paid for his beliefs by being tortured and killed. He put his life repeatedly on the line in places around the world.

Here is part of a note written the day before he was abducted:

If I understand the message of God, his response to that question is that we
are to take part in the creation of the Peaceable Realm of God. Again, if I
understand the message of God, how we take part in the creation of this
realm is to love God with all our heart, our mind and our strength and to
love our neighbors and enemies as we love God and ourselves. In its
essential form, different aspects of love bring about the creation of the
realm.

I have read that the word in the Greek Bible that is translated as "love" is
the word "agape." Again, I have read that this word is best expressed as a
profound respect for all human beings simply for the fact that they are all
God's children. I would state that idea in a somewhat different way, as
"never thinking or doing anything that would dehumanize one of my fellow
human beings."

As I survey the landscape here in Iraq, dehumanization seems to be the
operative means of relating to each other. U.S. forces in their quest to
hunt down and kill "terrorists" are, as a result of this dehumanizing word,
not only killing "terrorists," but also killing innocent Iraqis: men, women
and children in the various towns and villages.

It seems as if the first step down the road to violence is taken when I
dehumanize a person. That violence might stay within my thoughts or find its
way into the outer world and become expressed verbally, psychologically,
structurally or physically. As soon as I rob a fellow human being of his or
her humanity by sticking a dehumanizing label on them, I begin the process
that can have, as an end result, torture, injury and death.

"Why are we here?" We are here to root out all aspects of dehumanization
that exist within us. We are here to stand with those being dehumanized by
oppressors and stand firm against that dehumanization. We are here to stop
people, including ourselves, from dehumanizing any of God's children, no
matter how much they dehumanize their own souls.

SHALLOW FRAUD!
Posted by: garyoke on Mar 12, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yea...
I'm moving to Paris and I've decided that now I'm French. But I don't know how to speak French. I don't even know their history. But fuckit. If I say that I'm French, I am French. What makes it art? Because I say it is. Marcel Duchamps. Go figure.

» RE: SHALLOW FRAUD! Posted by: micki
» RE: SHALLOW FRAUD! Posted by: mim
Aquarius
Posted by: micki on Mar 12, 2006 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we are living through is the death rattle at the end stage of the old Piscean spirituality disguised as religious and political institutions,as we move into the Aquarian Age Yes, Christ existed, and continues to exist, but the spiritual teachings have been so distorted and misused for political purposes that the institutions themselves have ossified..Until the true unity of the teachings of Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, and the rest of the Enlightened Beings are recognized, there is little hope for Peace, either inner or outer..We are living in a turning point of time where there must be...

Peace in the world or the world in pieces.

» RE: Aquarius Posted by: reason
clinteastwood
Posted by: ClintEastwood on Mar 12, 2006 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't feel like you are the only Christian with different beliefs than the modern intrepretations of these "sacred" texts would imply. I am a Christian, as well. We may differ a bit, but we do share one thing in common. Neither of us believe in the literal intrepretation of these texts. I have, through extensive research, come to the absolute conclusion that Jesus is, yet, another personification of the sUn. He is the light of the world. There are truths in the Bible, but they are concealed in allegories and personifications. "Jesus" existed during the Age of Pisces. "Jesus'" sign is the fish. The sign of Pisces is the fish. "Abraham" existed during the Age of Aries. The sign of "Abraham" is the ram. The sign of Aries is the ram. Twelve tribes of Israel, twelve disciples, twelve signs of the zodiac...

This appeared in the Houston Chronicles, Truly amazing
Posted by: HawkSpirit on Mar 12, 2006 7:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Which in and by itself was a truly an amazing thing in Tom Delay Land. On the same op-ed page as letters saying the war is really making great strides and the president is a great christian leader.

why many on the left find religion intolerable
Posted by: Uki_Y on Mar 12, 2006 10:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason I think you will find so much relgion-basing in these leftist sorta environments is quite simple to explain. For me, there's two primary motivations for being dubious of religion, and I'd be happy if others would chime in.

First, many of us have been greatly harmed, or even only slightly harmed, by religion in the past. It's called a grudge. As an extreme example, I wonder how many of the good little Catholic alter boys and girls are spending an inordinate amount of time and money in therapy trying to heal their past wounds caused by some old, perverted white man in the name of Christ. Now, I'll admit, that's extreme, but that's not an isolated example. Seems to me, and I could be wrong, but the Holocaust might have had something to do with the fact that for some unknown reason, Hitler and his cronies didn't much like the Jews. See, there's a relationship. Ignorant, stupid people do ignorant, stupid things in the name of their God/religion. Those of who are more progressive thinking can't help but be annoyed by this, and would like to see it end. As long as religion exists, these problems will continue to exist.

Second, and this is MY main reason. I am sick and tired of people trying to regulate and control my thoughts, actions, and behaviors because they are incompatible with some nutcake's relgious beliefs. And why are we so angry? Because this is a problem which is not getting better in this country, but worse, and worse. We're on the verge of outlawing abortion because some people think life begins at conception. Now, I don't know if it does, and no one does. It might... it might not. Who knows? The point is, many do not think it does, and think it should be their right to choose an abortion. And before the moralists start crawling out of the woodwork with their usual rants that she shouln't have had sex... recently I read that a large percentage of the abortions are performed on MARRIED women, and you will never convince me they should not be having sex (remember, relgion tried to prevent that too, and trust me, if there's a way...). But that's another rant. Getting back to the point, I like to read, say, and do things that are incompatible with many religious beliefs; and I'm not talking bad things: just simple little things like using alcohol and mj responsibly, dancing, gambling, choosing to have an abortion if I think it is necessary and appropriate, listening to certain types of music, reading certain books and publications, surfing for porn, all things which if done in moderation and responsibly cannot be argued to really hurt people.

To summarize, I would be happy if these nutcakes would respect my position and leave me alone and quit passing needless laws and regulations that are impinging on my freedoms and rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

God Help You If You Really Need A Lawyer
Posted by: noval on Mar 13, 2006 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After eight years working and building a successful career as a free-lance court reporter, I quit cold because I realized that I was becoming like the people I was spending so much time with - the lawyers.

Eight years later I was a mother of three preschoolers needing a lawyer to defend my assets. Despite my acquaintance with the legal community, all I could find was a succession of three rip-off artists who were more abusive than the man I was divorcing. I count myself lucky because I was fighting only for money - not my children or my freedom.

If someone needs a lawyer, it is because they have been sucked into the cesspool/web created by lawyers. Who are the legislators who created the legal system but lawyers? Who are the judges who uphold this system of oppression and suppression but lawyers?

Why do they need weapon detectors at the door of the courthouse?

When the smokescreen clears from around their hocus-pocus shell game, there are guns in the hands of the men who stand behind the elaborate stage.

wow!
Posted by: cbishopp on Mar 13, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I LOVE WATCHING FOLKS GET RILED UP.

The author did his job beautifully and sparked necessary debate by reminding us all that your place in the universe is determined by the results of your actions not your associations.

Same Page
Posted by: mystictrek on Mar 13, 2006 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very good article. I suggest the author consider joining The Center for Progressive Christianity > http://www.tcpc.org/ and The Witherspoon Society (Progressive Presbyterians) > http://witherspoonsociety.org/ and my forum which can be found at a link at http://www.abundancetrek.com/blog

We are on the same page!

I do believe in God but the God I believe in is panentheistic rather than supernatural. Marcus Borg discusses the difference in an incredible book called THE HEART OF CHRISTIANITY. Maybe the author senses a mysterious and wonderful and holy inner connectedness??? That's God but you can call it something else and still be a progressive Christian. Or, even if you don't sense this inner connectedness, you can be a Progressive Christian as you already know through your association with some wonderful progressive Presbyterians. Check out the fourth point of the 8 points of Progressive Christianity > https://www.tcpc.org/about/the_8_points_english.html

More common ground can possibly be found through the Perennial Philosophy as described by Aldous Huxley in an intro to a Bhagavad Gita translation > http://members.tripod.com/~parvati/perennial.html

I sure hope the author and others who are on this same page will contact me and we can support and encourage each other in this important spiritual and political work.

love
mystictrek
+ http://www.abundancetrek.com & http://www.abundancetrek.com/blog
+ "Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love." [1 John 4:8 ]
+ "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right." -- Learned Hand
+ "To be nobody-but-yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else -- means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting" -- ee cummings

love,
mystictrek

Hmm...
Posted by: philosopherintraining on Mar 13, 2006 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know how to feel about this. I, at first, joined the church for reasons less spiritual, but I guess I just got into it. I guess I would just say that if he wants a good public forum for discussions on morality and ethical issues, while at the same time espousing decent moral values, let him. It doesn't really hurt anybody.

Strange article...
Posted by: grafstefan on Mar 13, 2006 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that Christianity is a category with defined attributes. It is not up to the author to decide whether or not he or she fits. The declared beliefs in the article are incompatible with the accepted definition of Christianity. (It should also be stated, again, that moral behavior is not an invention of Christ.)

Replace all the terms related to Christianity with terms related to race or language, and you will see how silly the premise seems to me.

pat1898
Posted by: pat1898 on Mar 13, 2006 5:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the 1950's we've been watching as more and more sophisticated sophists are angling their way into the mental processes of those who are truly seeking answers and who pride themselves on having minds open to listening to what seem to be "rational" arguments both for and against those of today's political issues that are--in the main--confusing both persons newly arrived in this country, and those who have not had the benefit of the kind of education we received prior to the 1950's.

This article seems to me, to be one of the finest examples of creating a "straw-man" that I've ever witnessed, other than a book I read which explained in true sanity and with great erudition, the fact that the Christian Coalition "just wanted recognition."

The fact that this gentleman who is a professor at a University after all, wants to join a Christian church is his business. I don't think any American who accepts the premises of the Bill of Rights would deny him or any other person on the planet, the freedom to believe as he chooses.

My question is: what measure of insecurity in what arena of his existence underlies what seems to be a compulsion to rationalize his choice to all of us who are, after all, strangers? What right would we have to judge his choice? To make such a choice is one of his privileges as an American citizen." He doesn't have to rationalize his choices to us. We didn't ask him "why." We didn't notice, and the majority of us don't care.

On the other hand, none of his arguments, when put under the light of logical and/or syllogistic examination, hold water. The number of persons being polled who do/do not "believe" in a supreme diety, the number who do/do not "believe" that morality is the sacred province of a specific group of "believers" has nothing to do with why this man joined the church of his choice.

What does? I neither know nor care. It's none of my business.

PeterR
Posted by: PeterR on Mar 14, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok I hear your intellectual argument. It is certainly fodder for reaction. I simply want to know the basic things.
As an athiest, when you are with members of your church do you:
Kneel and pray when they do?
Cross yourself?
Sing songs to the glory of god?
Bless yourself with holy water?
Take communion, drink the wine?
Ask god to forgive you for being a sinner?
Participate in ritual sacriments?
Or take a stand as some do and not salute the flag and seem like a jerk to others?

Progressive Christianity is open and diverse and welcoming
Posted by: mystictrek on Mar 14, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can understand why so many people here and on the Left in general are being hard on Christianity these days. With spokespersons like Falwell and Robertson and Dobson getting so much attention from the major media, people see the worst side of Christianity. Religion is often used in horrible ways.

Please read THE HEART OF CHRISTIANITY by Marcus Borg and get another "take" on our faith. Borg says that there is an "emerging paradigm" which approaches the Bible in a metaphorical and sacramental way. This is actually closer to the original pradigm than the "earlier paradigm" of many Christians today which is based on a literalist approach to the Bible.

Christianity at its best values diversity and freedom and openness, even doubt and skepticism. Christianity at its best sees no reason to deny science. Christianity at its best welcomes all people to the feast of God which is celebrated symbolically in Holy Communion.

Check out The Center for Progressive Christianity > http://www.tcpc.org/

love,
mystictrek
+ http://www.abundancetrek.com & http://www.abundancetrek.com/blog
+ "Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love." [1 John 4:8]
+ "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure you are right." -- Learned Hand
+ "To be nobody-but-yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else -- means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting" -- ee cummings

You're supporting hate
Posted by: cmaciain on Mar 16, 2006 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's where this really sticks. Bad enough to be lying but to support a regime that has given us the Burning Times, aided the Nazis, killed millions all over "God" and stood aside while people suffer--how can you do that? Yes, I know good, kind Christians. Yet Christianity as a whole as done a lot of harm and continues to do so today. I can only commend those who have the courage to say No. By going to this church, you are supporting hate and bigotry. I am not a Christian. I will not support an institution that has destroyed so many and that I flat out don't believe in. How can you do that?

God Bless You
Posted by: redstategal on Mar 16, 2006 8:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are struggling. God Bless You. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ that God reveals himself to you before its too late. However, you are not a Christian and you have no right to call yourself one. Hitler called himself a Christian. To say and to do are 2 completely different things. In order to be a Christian you must truley believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior and you must be obedient to God's Word amoung many other things. We Christians allow you to be with us in our churches because we love you as a person. I think your mission as a journalist is weak, tough guy. If you want a real juicy story, Why don't you go to a mosque and try your political stunts there?

» RE: God Bless You Posted by: blingnet88
All of us...human
Posted by: blingnet88 on Mar 16, 2006 10:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are not all Christian or Muslim or Hindu, but we are all human.

Religion is a very personal thing. Though there is so much money, popularity, and power involved that those who control the religious bureaucracies force their agenda onto a mass stage.

The source of dissonance in our culture is not religion. Rather religions are manifestations of deep cultural desires. Do you wonder why our brand of salvationist religions only started to appear after the advent of the agricultural revolution? Before then it seems like people didn't need to be rescued from a life full of hardships. It seemed, on the contrary, that people enjoyed their lives. They didn't pray to gods to be allowed access into heaven (paradise outside of earth). On the other hand they prayed to gods so they would help them maintain their fulfilling life on earth. They didn't need or want escape.

Nightfall
Posted by: Mycos on Mar 18, 2006 11:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By Isaac Asimov

Read it. Rated the best sci-fi short story ever written.

Oh! And it deals with precisely the question of atheism vs. religion. Are they mutually exclusive? (as many of my fellow atheist seem sure of) Perhaps they're both incapable of getting at the whole truth because they both are after he same thing but the practitioners of each are too limited in scope to get at it.

A CHRISTLESS CHRISTIAN ?
Posted by: Riaan on Mar 25, 2006 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Prof,

A Christless Chrisitan is like a Motorless Motorvechile. It might run well down a hill, but never will make it up the next hill.

Here is my answer to you: The Resurrection: Reality, Not Dead Religion
"Now as they spoke to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. (Act_4:1-2)"

The resurrection of Christ is the difference between a dead religion and a personal relationship. Living by resurrection power is the difference between earthly striving and heavenly reality. These differences can be seen in the contrast between the religious authorities of Israel and the disciples of Jesus.

The disciples were proclaiming to the people the wondrous message of the risen Lord Jesus. "They taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead." Such a message infuriated the religious leaders. "The priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, being greatly disturbed." Today, many religious leaders reflect a similar response. In the popular religious world, universalism and skepticism prevail. Each religion is viewed as one more road leading to God. Anything miraculous is unacceptable, as human reasoning reigns supreme. In many religious circles, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either an object of scoffing or an area of hypocritical compromise.

The Sadducees of old were like this. They would talk about the resurrection, even asking Jesus questions that seemed to affirm that God could raise people from the dead. "Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her" (Mat_22:28). This question followed their scenario in which seven brothers would become the husband of the same woman, through seven death and marriage sequences. What a mockery this question represented. First, it was given in hypocrisy. "The Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him" (Mat_22:23). Second, they were unaware of what the scriptures said about such a heavenly matter. "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Mat_22:30). Jesus explained that these religious rationalists made two great errors in their approach. "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Mat_22:29).

We who have been born again by faith in the risen Lord Jesus can err in a similar fashion in our day by day living. We can talk about the resurrection of Jesus, but behave as though it were not an actual reality for Christian living. We can be mistaken, "not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God."
1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us. 1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father...1Jo 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

2Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Guardian Of Truth! Riaan - South Africa

Brenda123
Posted by: brenda123 on Mar 29, 2006 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Christian who has been married to an atheist for almost 20 years, I think I am a good witness that atheists can be moral. My husband is a hard working, honest man who is loving and strives to do his best for his family and to be a good friend and a fair manager. Sure, he has his flaws, but we all do — atheists, Christians, or whoever you are — no one holds an exclusive claim to morality. Our atheist friends often have a keen eye for when we fall short of Christian ideals.

Mr. Jensen is onto something when he expresses his wish that we could all be more committed to feeling compassion for others while showing respect for their dignity and equal value. That’s hard to do when people interpret your compassion towards them as an insult to their dignity. Christians will often charge right in with their message of compassion and then they don’t understand why it wasn’t received with gratefulness. The Bible does say, “Be merciful to those who doubt” Jude 1:22, but it also says, “Always be prepared to give an answer for the hope that you have, but do this with gentleness and RESPECT” 1 Peter 3:15. So I asked myself: how do you show respect for someone that you disagree with? My thinking is that, you not only go out of your way to avoid belittling them, but you also try to understand their perspective, and then you make a point not to neglect expressing your respect for them, before you make your arguments.

I presume Mr. Jensen to be an intelligent man and I respect his zest for morality. My argument with Mr. Jensen would be that a better way “to lower barriers” would be to teach students diplomatic skills, instead of attempting to make religious beliefs irrelevant. Let’s say you could get people to universally abandon their belief in a supernatural figure with a higher intelligence and a perfect morality, leaving every assembly without a God to hold them accountable, would they then agree on every “political” issue and have perfect unity of thought with all the other assemblies across the country? Even if you can find a set of moral values in every world religion that overlaps, you cannot get everyone to agree on every issue that falls outside of that set and you will still have groups of people who disagree on what should be legal. You will still have people lashing out because another group of people has more political control or for whatever other reason people are afraid that they may not get what they feel they deserve. The problem with people is that when everything is going fine we can talk about how much we love each other and how much good we do for others out of compassion, but when someone challenges our views or wrongs us, we are often quick to throw out our credo of love and take up arms (verbally or physically). The difference is that when people of religion do this, they tend to use God as a scape-goat, even as they ignore what He really wants them to do. The thing that cannot be measured is how many times people would have lashed out in hate, but instead they restrained themselves because they believed what God said and they listened to him, and instead they forgave and showed love to those who offended or hurt them.

Mr. Jensen is having a hard time reconciling how this man, Jesus Christ, whose moral teachings he has such respect for, can claim to be something that seems utterly impossible — the Son of someone, who in Mr. Jensen’s mind, does not exist. So he rationalizes, Jesus must be trying to convey some hidden message about moral principles, when he says he is the Son of God. Mr. Jensen wonders if even the resurrection could be a “metaphor”, which seems an odd question when you consider the testimonies of Jesus’ disciples, documented in the Bible. They invited people to examine the evidence. Jesus’ disciples were persecuted and died, not only for what they believed in, but for what they knew to be the truth.

You cannot deliver a message if you cannot deliver the messenger.
Posted by: saphil@yahoo.com on Mar 29, 2006 10:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like even very clever people want to have conversations that mean something, with people who they consider important.
Lately I have met a number of people who are stridently Christian, and they seem to be impervious to Christian morality and scripture if it is recast in any way. Jesus said we should love one-another. Jesus said we were ALL the sons and daughters of the Father. He was not starting a religion or a church. Jesus was a Jewish boy from occupied Pallestine who spoke strong truths to the people he met in a language and metaphor which they understood. How is this so awfully different than than what Robert Jenson did in joining this church? Find me a biblical reference that says "Jesus said, "I believe... something filled in here." I have read the Bible in several versions, and this does not seem to be the way he worked. He was into delivering concrete examples of abstract thoughts..
Before you go to take the mote from thy brother's eye, make sure you take the beam out of yours.."
Jesus really had a lot of funny material. He used humor and commonsensical examples to get ideas into armored minds.
In Mr. Jenson's case, he has no way of really knowing what the mid-line conservatives are really thinking or wanting, if he cannot get these nice people to lower the armoring first.

Down here, it seems like almost every new person I meet wants to know whose flag I am wearing - am I a Christian of the proper flavor. Imagine Jesus trying to fit in with most of the Christians he would meet. He isn't a Christian at all, and extremely unlikely to take Himself as His Lord and Savior.

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement