sophiaserpentia: (Default)
sophiaserpentia ([personal profile] sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-04-11 01:11 pm

If I was a Christian, for Easter

I am a spiritual refugee, exiled from my home forever. I could be a Christian if not for scripture, if not for doctrine.

If I was a Christian, this is what I would believe.

That Jesus believed in us.

That Jesus wanted us to see that no matter what we had experienced or done before, that we could rise above it by living in accord with the spirit of compassion and love for the divine.

That Jesus wanted us to understand that we are all in this together, and that together we could make anything happen. There is no "us versus them," there are no enemies; those who limit or oppress us are lost in their own nightmare and suffer their own limitations, and there is always hope of helping them to wake up.

That Jesus wanted us to stand together in solidarity and love in the face of brutality.

That Jesus refused to cower in the face of persecution, and was killed for challenging injustice.

That Easter is a clear sign from God that resistance against wrong and limitation is not futile -- that living in perfect love and perfect trust is the key to victory over death and fate.

That Paul wanted us to understand that the Resurrection is a promise that God is on our side when we work to transcend the limitations of fate.

That Paul wanted us to play our part in the reconciliation whereby God will become all in all.

crossposted to my journal and crossposted to [livejournal.com profile] convert_me

[identity profile] haytanbello.livejournal.com 2004-04-11 03:41 pm (UTC)(link)
I pretty much agree, except that I think you're being too easy on Paul. :)

[identity profile] brigid-shine.livejournal.com 2004-04-11 04:11 pm (UTC)(link)
thought so myself. the Great Usurper.

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2004-04-11 08:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Paul's innovations on the message of Jesus are important to the understanding of Christianity. A lot of liberal theologians want to downplay Paul's contributions or discard him altogether, but I do not see that as constructive. Paul is complex and not every writing attributed to him is helpful. But it is obvious that he did not write everything attributed to him and the differences are quite astounding between what he did write, and what he didn't.

BTW have you seen the "Scholarly Smackdown" about Paul between Elaine Pagels and Ben Witherington III on Beliefnet?