To find the Christian faith difficult to understand?

[redshinyshoes]

Firstly, I am not looking for a fight, trying to upset anyone and I can see why this may sound ignorant but I am genuinly curious. I was brought up in a very atheist household where anyone religious was treated with suspision but as an adult I have a few Christian friends and would consider myself agnostic. I want to know (but don't feel I can ask my Christian friends as don't want to offend) whether Christians believe the bible word for word or see it as more metaphorical? If it's word for word, how otherwise down to earth intelligent people can fathom a virgin birth, the Earth only being a few thousand years old and the sea parting?

Himalaya, originally, the Creation story as literal truth was also seen as fairly central. Yet if you rule that out, then it is also hard to accept the Fall as well, because how did the Fall happen?

I've studied the scriptures a lot, although I'm not a true scholar, and to me, if you come to the conclusion as I have, that God is love and not a harsh vengeful God, then the thought that Jesus had to die because we were so awful, is not something that I can believe. And its not just me either. Its not just some wacky idea I came up with, but its a thread of belief, through the centuries, with certain scholars, and is becoming more and more mainstream.

what a really interesting thread

for the first time in my MN history and going have to go back to the beginning and reread!

MyrrhyBS Fair comment tbh. Will try and make a bit of a suggestion that may or may not ring true/make sense.

First point is that Jesus didn't have to die - it was an offering from God. Suppose God - being God - doesn't really have to do anything.

God sending Jesus though, was a significant change in the way he 'did things' and in the nature of his relationship with his people. So why did he do it?

Basically, throughout the OT, God's relationship with his people was a covenant relationship, starting with Abraham. So, God provided X, Y and Z in return for his people doing A, B and C. The OT is essentially a long account of this relationship failing - the people didn't do what they were meant to, God kept on forgiving them (forgiving them as a people that is - certain individuals within the group obviously suffered sometimes as a result). This is why there was such a need for ongoing sacrifice, rules, regulations etc.

At some point, God recognised the futility of this relationship - he was God and his people were a long way from perfect - and so changed tack. One perfect sacrifice to replace the thousand imperfect ones. One law of the heart to replace the thousand laws that the Israelites had built up over the years. The relationship became based on the hearts of his people rather than their actions. One of my previous posts here has a good example of this. (p5-6 I think? - won't bother rewriting as I've already found that my posts have been far too long).

Now, tbh I recognise that this is a) a very simplistic explanation, and b) easy to pick holes in. I could probably happily pick holes in it which is why I'm still testing my beliefs and trying to learn more. Best I can offer right now though.

Thanks deepheat, that's very good and very useful, one of the better explanations. And yet I find it hard to accept being one of God's people in the Old Testament, as I was not a Jew. Does that make sense? Jesus opened it up for everyone, although he didn't at first realise that is what he was doing.

I am struggling a bit IRL at the moment, so am finding it hard to string coherent sentences together, so I quote from "something I wrote earlier":

But for me, what is supremely important is that God comes to meet us, on our level, on our terms, in his son Jesus Christ. The image of a detached, impersonal God who does not care is quite simply blown out of the water by this. There are other times I ask myself ?Why?, and it?s a question that is often asked of Christians, why does God allow suffering? And I?d be lying if I said I had the answer. But one thing I can tell you, is that whatever and whenever we suffer, Jesus suffered first. I believe in a God who empathises with us in our pain, and he offers a supreme form of empathy, by literally walking in our shoes, for as it says in the letter to the Hebrews, in Jesus ?we do not have someone who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, and yet is without sin?.

I agree with deepheat that the point of Jesus incarnation was to draw a line under the religion which had gone before and start off again with a completely new idea.

I'm still not sure how to reconcile no Fall with Jesus' sacrifice - it wasn't to "atone" for the sin of Adam, if Adam didn't exist. And without Adam, we have no share in Adam's sin, so what exactly are we being saved from?

The best I can come up with so far is that Jesus' incarnation changed the way we are able to think about God. The idea that God could be so concerned about mankind that He would actually become human, not just in a "tourist trip to look at the shanty towns from an air-conditioned bus" kind of visit, but a "being born and living every moment of every day as a human" way, even to the point of accepting death and suffering, makes a massive difference to the way we see ourselves, and God, and the possibilities of a relationship.

I don't know if death on the cross was always an inevitable part of the trip, but I reckon God knew what the situation He was being born into was like, and how likely it would be that He'd outrage the religious leaders to the extent that they'd do what they did.

Just want to say, what a great thread. For once a thread about Christianity hasn't deteriorated into a bunfight. :)

Hear hear, MamaMary :)

Yes indeed, a very interesting thread. This question, of the fall is the one that puzzles me most about Christianity. Deepheat and MyrrhhBS you seem to deal with it by writing it out altogether, and also in some respects saying that Jesus's death (and the manner of his death) was almost incidental and not as important as his life?

This seems to definately go against the importance given to the crucifixtion in Christian churches, imagery and thinking.

Deepheat - I am not sure I understand your distinction that Jesus did not have to die, but he was an offering or sacrifice (to who?).

Also when you talk about 'his people' why is it that god only communicated with one tribe for so long? Similarly MrrhhBS when you say didn't realise he was opening up true religion for all, that seems odd. I mean- if that was god's plan and purpose in incarnating himself wouldn't god (Jesus) know about it?

Perhaps I oversimplified things, as I said, my brain is a bit fuzzy at the moment. Jesus death and resurrection is paramount, because by so doing he conquers death.

As for Jesus not realising at first that he was here for all, this is based on Matthew 15:21-28.

Although Jesus is God, he was also man, he started life like us, as a baby, and learned as a human would. Exactly how much divine knowledge was available to him is a matter for debate, but I guess its a question of him being, as St Paul says "a man like us, in all things but sin", and so he didn't have divine foreknowledge, even though he knew he had to die. Perhaps even that only came to him as he lived his life and exercised his ministry on earth.

Redshineyshoes I am a Catholic, once lapsed (atheist), unbeliever in transubstantiation. That bit out of the way, I came back to my faith through reading the bible.

Yes some of it doesn't make sense. Yes some of it is contradictory. It is not one book. It is a collection of many books. Influenced by the times (the flood is Babylonian in origin), stories that were part of the oral tradition, re-told since before the advent of agriculturalism and eventually written down. Then scattered, re-formed, translated and translated again.

What I get out of it is what speaks to my heart (for want of a better word). And that is love your god with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself; religion doesn't matter so long as you are a good person (Good Samaritan, judge not (a really hard bit) and forgive others (another really hard bit); Jesus died to save everyone. I figure that if we lived our lives by these rules we would be better off.

Thing is, read the gospels and if they speak to you then cool, if not then that's cool too.

My understanding of evolution does make me wonder if there is no God, or if there is a God he is misguided.

Evolution has led to the existence of sentient beings that experience great suffering. I cannot see why an all powerful God would put the process of evolution into action. An all-powerful and good God would create a world in which needless suffering did not exist. Much of the suffering of the world has nothing to do with humanity, and was going on before we came into existence.

I can only think that there is no God or that the currently popular God is a misguided creator, and beyond that God is a true God, in the Gnostic Christian tradition.

Interesting Milly. You think that there is no god or that god is imperfect? Who is to say that what we think of god is nothing more than something/one doing a science experiment? It would explain coming from bread in a petri dish to interest in volcanoes, followed by dinosaurs, followed by sentient beings, and then being wrathful/willful before being really nice and explaining things and then just settling down and allowing what will be to be. Just like a child into an adult.

Himalaya Fair question. Re my suggestion that Jesus didn't have to die: haven't got a highbrow explanation of that. Put simply, if God is God, then he doesn't have to do anything because he is God.

Re what the sacrifice was for/to: going back to the OT, the Israelites used to offer sacrifices to God in atonement for their sins. As per my previous post, this carried on for a jolly long time and they kept on having to make sacrifices because they kept on sinning. Their covenant relationship with God was broken by sin, their sacrifice and repentance restored it. This process was repeated ad nauseum.

The point of Jesus was that because he was perfect, one sacrifice could take the place of all the others and didn't need to be repeated. The question of who the sacrifice was to is much more thorny because it gets into theology/beliefs about the trinity - three in one, one in three, Father, Son, Holy Spirit etc. - because it was a sacrifice of God's son - who was also God - to God himself. If I'm honest, thousands of books have been written on this by people much cleverer than me, it is complicated and I'm not sure I can provide an answer that makes loads of sense. But hey! What's faith without a bit of mystery.

BUT.... I'll give it a go and try and provide my opinion on your question about the fall at the same time.

I think there is a natural justice to things that comes from - and is - God. It is human nature for people who have been wronged to want to see payback to the people that have wronged them. An eye for an eye. Sacrifices across all cultures have developed for this reason and to try and keep in favour with whoever the people believe God is. From a historians perspective, war throughout history can be seen as two enemies perpetuating sacrifices against each other in the name of their God (and as we moved into more secular times post-enlightenment, in the name of their values). Again, in the Biblical accounts of battles, once a side had won, the dead of their enemies were offered as their sacrifice to their God (both by the Israelites and their enemies). So, humanity betrays a need for natural justice and I would argue that this comes from God. The problem is that this means that conflicts often go on for hundreds of years, simply because it becomes a case of an eye for an eye. The point in Jesus was that because he was a perfect sacrifice there is no need for any more. As per my previous posts, God was essentially saying to humanity "Look, there has now been one perfect sacrifice - all that is left is for you to repent of your sins and I will forgive youand, because this is the new order of things, this means that you must forgive the people who wrong you as well. Follow my lead - don't demand an eye for an eye, just forgive."

That's me putting words into God's mouth. Probably not a good thing to do but I'm hoping he won't mind.

So, the sacrifice wasn't so much to anyone, but for everyone.

This is really difficult to write down off the cuff on a messageboard and I actually need to go now so apologies for chipping off half-way through (seriously! - I hadn't even got to the fall yet - will try and do that later!)

Thanks deepheat, very interesting!