Our second reading, taken from the website of an evangelical Christian group, first of the fourteen million one hundred thousand long list on my Google search, was not really much different to the second in the list, that of a Catholic church, in content though they used slightly different language to explain the same thing.

What was being said was quite simple. We were all damned! We weren't damned because we had done anything but were damned because of the actions of Eve and Adam, especially Eve, in Genesis during the serpent-apple-Eve part. It seems that Eve's decisions damned all of mankind for ever more. This situation seems to have remained the same throughout the Hebrew Testament.

All the Eve and Adam's offspring, every one, starting from birth to death were damned unless they were Hebrew and followed God's rules, the ten commandments ... exactly. Then they just might be saved. God in the Old Testament was a very 'strict' god, a Hebrew god and was not the same god that everyone else might have had, as there were a number about, which different other groups used.

However, this would have been the background of Jesus and what he would have been taught. To me, this doesn't seem to be the same sort of god that Jesus seems to talk about as depicted in the Christian testament. This god, though strict, seems more forgiving.

When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans he had never actually been to Rome. Perhaps, on this basis, 'The Letters of Paul to the Romans,' surely therefore could have only been responding to little more than hearsay and tittle-tattle .... or on the basis that they didn't follow the Hebrew or Jesus god.

In general, 'The Letters of Paul to the Romans' is often portrayed as the most detailed account of what Paul actually taught i.e. what he understood about Jesus' teaching. As such, he is saying that following what Paul says is the only way to be accepted by God and that this is what the Romans and anyone else should do.

In brief, Paul says, in chapters 1-8, what Jesus did by going through his own death and resurrection, i.e. that he has saved the 'Christians' from eternal damnation by being the 'sons and daughters' of Eve and Adam. The quotation "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23a) should clearly be taken in this context. Then chapters 9-11 deal with his hopes that the Jews will also accept this teaching and in chapters 12-16 he then explains how 'Christians', the ones saved, should really behave, so that they don't become damned again.

This web information, further supported by the rest of the article, concentrates on the description of the 'passion' and 'resurrection' of Jesus which, through the more evangelical Christian tradition, has given us all a fresh start using the quotations "For when we were yet without strength, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly" (Romans 5:6) and "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16) quotations which use a 'you have to be in our gang' approach again.

I suppose we can also throw in the Mark quotation (Mark 3:29) "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." This is a sort of 'catch-all' that suggests that if you say bad things about the Jesus/Holy Spirit/God trinity such as them/he/it is a bad lot or that God doesn't exist then you will be dammed with no escape possible.... ever. Another 'believe in me - or else', sting in the tail.

Please remember though, that the above quotes are used by all of the Christian churches that I have knowledge of, but especially the evangelical ones.

So can I accept such a negative threat situation? No I can't. Surely these have to have been translation errors or the result of misinterpretations of what was written, or active intervention by the early Church of Rome to skew the then new church message in a way that could be used to control the masses.

The previous quotes are all from the Bible but I reject them totally. To me, this does not seem to reflect the genuine Jesus that is the committed and caring healer and teacher that I find in the Christian testament nor does it reflect my own experience of God where 'active concern, love, support and encouragement' seemed to be better descriptions of what was on offer.

So where does that leave me, or us even? Do I accept, as a Unitarian any of the previous contentions? No I don't! Is my thinking at fault? No I don't believe that it is, though my understanding has been developed and been refined over the years. Why? Because my understanding is not just based on reason or argument but on the basis of a number of spiritual experiences which have faced me with a different and developing 'truth'… no, not different but more refined. I have to accept that my own inner 'knowing' has led me to, or placed me in an understanding that would be totally unacceptable to those who accept what they have been told is the truth. But are we so far apart as it seems? No I don't think so.

A great deal of this perceived 'problem' revolves around the meanings of the words used. The main Christian churches and perhaps those 'churches' of other religious traditions maintain that the words that they use to base their faith on within their 'holy' books have a specific meaning and a specific meaning only. However as a person with some linguistic training I understand that this isn't wholly realistic.

In any language, words in isolation have a specific and defined meaning or range of meanings. The meaning of these same words in sentences however, can have the word meaning contextualized away from the original dictionary meaning. Also, the context in which a sentence is used can also determine the flavour of any specific word meaning. Words can be very slippery.

And this isn't taking into account that the meaning of specific words can change with time. All this, of course, is most unsettling to those who insist that words can only have a specific meaning. But language actually is a constantly fluid and flexible thing. Now how terrible is that?

Let me give you a single example. Let us take the word 'wood', that which trees are made of. That is simple and straight forward, isn't it? Wooden denotes something made of wood. But wooden can be used to denote someone who 'is as thick a as two short planks'. Yet wood is a highly flexible and resilient material so wood and wooden can also be used in a different context to denote flexibility and resilience, as in 'bending in the wind', of thought and thought processes. And so on and on it goes. If you accept that this might be possible, or on occasion to be true for you, then this same sort of situation must be the same for other people.

And then we consider the effect of a word meaning over time. Some, perhaps many of our words have changed markedly since the middle ages and then just think of the difficulties of the meaning of words in other languages. Do they always mean the same as the equivalent words in the other language? No, the interpreter often has to choose an appropriate but different word with a different range of meanings on the basis of 'best fit'. And then of course the other language will also have changed over time won't it? In terms of the New Testament, we are talking of the best part of two thousand years. If this is acceptable how can the meaning of any specific word in use now necessarily have the exact same meaning across millennium and languages?

It is all very difficult. Word meanings across time and, sometimes a number of languages, are even more slippery and we are not in certainty then but the 'best guess' time. The steps backwards are our English, medieval English, Latin to usually the Greek or Coptic Greek. But who is to say that the original translation from Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek was exact or correct?

And then we have another even more slippery problem. Modern bibles have been translated by teams of translators because of the difficulty and size of the task. This of course, from time to time, has presented a range of meanings for a particular word without consensual agreement. Then the 'chairman' steps in and makes the decision for them. Did you know that the chairman doesn't take a part in the original efforts in translating the bible? This is because of maintaining 'fairness' in the translation made. However on all the more recent translations the chairman was an evangelical Christian pastor because it was funded by the evangelical movement.

Now given a choice of word meanings do you think that this chairman will choose a translation which is different to the evangelical Christian view of the biblical story? I suggest that with or without thinking the choice made would be that which fits their Christian belief and linguistic understanding. If this chairman does this how true then is the finished translation?

Having just criticised that process I, of course, do exactly the same when faced with a problem. I go with my belief and understanding based on my own experiences rather than someone else's. And yes it has and will change with time, thought and new experience. I ask no more of any of you. Knowledge should be tempered with experience.

In my Unitarianism, understanding is an experiential journey of discovery that is taking me back to god. There is no other journey but the journey of the spirit ... ours! In the last analysis little else really matters but the journey home. Make yours a good one that others will recognise as a wonderful lesson to follow. What you are and do does not matter, it is who you have been that shines out to others and guides them. Be a beacon. "Go make something possible."

Joe Potter  31/007/2011