[ QUOTE ]
But loving your neighbor, don't do bad sh*t, is a result of acting from the intrinsic basic awareness no? Isn't it just that the manifestations of acting from source, rather than the source itself that gets taken as truth in Christianity? I haven't read most of the Bible but it seems to point towards something like, be yourself, such as "the church of God is inside you". I see what you mean though, I'm thinking that the Bible just gets misinterpreted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is right on. (For the record, I am 22 and a cross-wearing go-to-church-every-sunday christian). J. Stew, the way you think about God is very close to the way I think about God (and the way we talk about God in my UCC church). I think it is also very close to the God revealed by the teachings of Jesus.

I never know what to say when people say:
[ QUOTE ]
I like this. Just wanted to point out that a lot of religions are contrary to this, and actually encourage a dualistic world view. Black & white thinking. Christianity is a big one.


[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the need to defend christianty, but Kip is clearly calling out NotReady's version rather than mine. Oh, I think I just answered my own question. I need to give up on debating with non-christians and focus on debating with christians. It’s futile to debate with non-christians about christianty because they are (rightly) more interested in talking about the common form. A (potentially) more productive discussion would be in debating with other christians why they favor their interpretations.

Towards that end, does anyone know why most christians have somehow forgotten or overlooked the fact that the gospels were written by human beings between (roughly) 30 and 70 years after Jesus's death, and that these humans had a particluar motive of sharing what is was like to experience his ministry. What is the basis for interpreting any of it literally, rather than mystically?