New Age à la Luther [Archive]

FreezBee

13th January 2006, 10:12 AM

Hi;

In the Lutheran church in Denmark New Age ideas are spreading, especially belief in reincarnation. I am curious as to the extent to which this might be the case in Lutheran churches elsewhere.

Autumn 2005 the Danish high court overruled the decision of a local parish council to disengage a church employee, who believed in reincarnation. The parish council had defended its decision claiming that the employee had put himself outside the church by his belief and therefore was no longer qualified for his job. However, the high court found that in the opinion of the church employee he had not put himself outside the church, because he thought reincarnation compatible with the Nicene Creed.

Is there really a problem, and if yes, what is the problem? The dissidents, or a church that cannot adjust itself to the living world around it? I'm no advocate for playing along with New Age ideas, but are many Lutherans too used to preaching for just the inner circle too have much of message for people that while believers, do not recognize themselves in traditional Lutheranism?

Thanks in advance for any comments :)

- FreezBee

BigNorsk

13th January 2006, 02:03 PM

Well I haven't seen any big jump in belief in reincarnation among Lutherans. I am a bit curious how the Danish church defines essential beliefs. Is it anyone who holds to the Nicene Creed or what?

Their is a general trend among young people to become what I would call Hindu even though they think of themselves as Christian. It is prevalent among the young because of a style of thinking called postmodern. Basically, the only wrong thing is to claim one is right and others are wrong. It's really very common. People arrive at their view of Christianity not through a following of authority, neither the Bible nor tradition, but more of a self-serve smorgasbord of pick and choose whatever you like.

Reincarnation hasn't made it, but there are lots of Lutherans that have taken New Age beliefs as their own. For instance, homeopathic medicine, which is based on taking a poison that causes the symptoms you want to cure, and then diluting the poison so much that you can't find it if you analyzed the water, but the water "remembers" the poison so taking it then cures the illness. Selling homeopathic cocaine would be legal if it wasn't for the laws against counterfeit illegal drugs, but you can't sell homeopathic drugs to drug addicts they won't fall for it. No buzz. Yet millions of Christians spend millions of dollars on homeopathic medicine.

I thought your question was interesting to say the least because as I have followed your messages on the board, I kind of thought you were a postmodern Lutheran who has kind of picked and chosen pieces without accepting anything as belonging because it is part of Christianity or Lutheranism.

Marv

KagomeShuko

13th January 2006, 02:16 PM

The Danish church is state run. Lutheranism is the "official" religion, as much as it can be called "Lutheran." My sister tells me that they are losing their faith. (Which reminds me, I'm supposed to send an e-mail. . .OOPS).

Anyway, there was even a pastor who had denied that Jesus had ever existed, had a trial, and got to keep his job (though my sister tells me that she thinks he was suspended after awhile).

I've not seen people losing their faith in America, really. I've honestly been pleasantly surprised with many of the conversations I have with people when talking about Youth Ministry and talking with the youth, too.

However, Denmark, it's really not keeping the "true Lutheran faith" (no matter if closer to LCMS or closer to ELCA) - they start believing things Lutherans would never teach.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

KEPLER

13th January 2006, 06:04 PM

FreezBee,

I know in Germany that there are two Lutheran Churches. As I understand it, they are both "state" churches, but one (the more confessional of the two) has more autonomy than the other. Is this true in Denmark, as well?

Kepler

Protoevangel

14th January 2006, 12:15 AM

For instance, holistic medicine, which is based on taking a poison that causes the symptoms you want to cure, and then diluting the poison so much that you can't find it if you analyzed the water, but the water "remembers" the poison so taking it then cures the illness.
Minor issue (sorry for going off-course, FreezBee), but I have to mention that this definition of holistic medicine is flawed. Holistic medicine is not about diluting poisons. Holistic medicine encompases the analysis of physical, nutritional, environmental, emotional, and lifestyle elements of the person.

What you describe is homeopathy. It is a type of treatment sometimes used in holistic medicine, but is not, by necessity, a part of holistic medicine, any more than qigong, chiropractic, massage, acupuncture, aerobics, or eating nutritionally can be described alone holistic medicine.

Protoevangel

14th January 2006, 12:20 AM

Even the more liberal Lutheran denomination in the US, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, flatly rejects reincarnation:

Christians reject reincarnation theories (http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=24)

Theories of reincarnation are the antithesis of Lutheran theology. ELCA Lutherans, together with all Christians, believe that God creates each human being as a "one and only." Each person is a unique child of God. Nor is the body a prison which holds the soul captive; rather, it is the face, legs, arms, mind, heart, etc. that God has provided the self.

Furthermore, whereas with either the ancient or New Age notions of reincarnation one’s spiritual status relies upon one’s own achievement, the biblical witness is that salvation is God’s free gift. It is God’s desire for each one’s life to end in God - a new creation, not a fragmented soul fleeing a decaying shell in order to inhabit another earthly body selected as a reward or punishment for lives past.

ELCA Lutherans believe that we live one life on earth and that, together with all creation, we human beings are created to pass from conception and birth through life on this earth to resurrection and reunion with the Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier Triune God.

FreezBee

14th January 2006, 07:27 AM

Well I haven't seen any big jump in belief in reincarnation among Lutherans. I am a bit curious how the Danish church defines essential beliefs. Is it anyone who holds to the Nicene Creed or what?

Well, accepting Confessio Augustana is of course required to count as a Lutheran :) But in a more general sense, holding to the the Nicene Creed is what's required, but in a specific interpretation - exactly the one quoted by DanHead. The Resurrection is not the re-unification of body and soul contrary to the interpretation of those who believe in reincarnation. The split into body and soul, a characteristic of gnostic philosophy, is not accepted by the Lutheran church (and nor should it be :) )

Their is a general trend among young people to become what I would call Hindu even though they think of themselves as Christian. It is prevalent among the young because of a style of thinking called postmodern. Basically, the only wrong thing is to claim one is right and others are wrong. It's really very common. People arrive at their view of Christianity not through a following of authority, neither the Bible nor tradition, but more of a self-serve smorgasbord of pick and choose whatever you like.

Yes, I agree with you here - the Lutheran church in Denmark had been protected from foreign influence for a long period. From 1536 to 1683 it was virtually impossible for non-Lutherans to settle here, and it was only to encourage trade and industry that the king in 1683 was persuaded to allow Jews and Dutch Reformed to settle here, though they were not granted full civil rights. This last first came with the constitution of June 5. 1849. In return this constitution required the king to be a member of the Lutheran church :)

Today, 84.6% of the population are members of the Lutheran church, but often with their own mix of religion. Simply by tradition children are baptized and remain members of the Lutheran church, whether they are particular Lutheran or not. Since you are only required to by church tax (0.6%), their is no particular reason to resign from the church, if you aren't really devoted to something that requires that. And with the more international influence on society today of course many members are more or less New Age or something similar.

There are some priests that have tried to develop a charismatic form of Lutheranism especially to catch the interest of young people and to counter the Hindu influence, but I personally don't like this approach all that much.

I thought your question was interesting to say the least because as I have followed your messages on the board, I kind of thought you were a postmodern Lutheran who has kind of picked and chosen pieces without accepting anything as belonging because it is part of Christianity or Lutheranism.
:D Ok, I admit that I might appear that way, because while I have been brought up in a conservative Lutheran family, I chose to break away from that - but I just have never really found something else that I could fully agree with :)

Yes, my posts should show a variety of influences, and I'm not really trying to be a "hard-core" Lutheran Christian, so your observation is correct - I may be more of a "searcher" than a Lutheran.

- FreezBee

FreezBee

14th January 2006, 07:58 AM

The Danish church is state run. Lutheranism is the "official" religion, as much as it can be called "Lutheran." My sister tells me that they are losing their faith. (Which reminds me, I'm supposed to send an e-mail. . .OOPS).

Yes and no to that the Danish church is state run today - the king used to be some kind of mini-pope completely controlling the church, but as I have mentioned in my response to BigNorsk, the constitution of June 5. 1849 changed that. There is still a church minister, and priest need to have a master's degree from the theological faculty of a Danish university. There is financial support from the state, 1/3 of the salary of the priests is payed outside of the church tax, but apart from the church finances itself, and members of other recognized religions are compensated by a tax deduction. But, you may ask, who decides which other religions to recognize? The church ministry! Actually even the Asa-tru have just recently been recognized.

But as your sister says, "they are loosing their faith", and the church is trying to figure out what to do about it.

Anyway, there was even a pastor who had denied that Jesus had ever existed, had a trial, and got to keep his job (though my sister tells me that she thinks he was suspended after awhile).

Yes, Thorkild Grossbøll, who wrote a book "The Stone in the Shoe", in which he declared himself an atheist, and of course each and every conservative Lutheran was enraged. The main crime of course was to say it in public, I know of a few other atheist pastors, but they just don't flag it in public :)

The Bishop of Helsinore had Thorkild Grossbøll transferred to administrative work, but several members of his parish were against that decision, and that led to the trial. As of now, Grossbøll is still pastor, but administratively under the more liberal Bishop of Roskilde, who offered to release the Bishop of Helsinore from this difficult pastor.

I've not seen people losing their faith in America, really. I've honestly been pleasantly surprised with many of the conversations I have with people when talking about Youth Ministry and talking with the youth, too.

Ok, it's difficult for me to figure out what is going on around just from reading on the web. Some say this, and some say that, USA is a difficult country to figure out much about :)

However, Denmark, it's really not keeping the "true Lutheran faith" (no matter if closer to LCMS or closer to ELCA) - they start believing things Lutherans would never teach.

True, and that's also why I'm interested in finding out, what is the "true Lutheran faith". This autumn I have written a paper about another Danish pastor, who is also a member of our parliament for a VERY nationalist party, which is against any kind of foreign influence and is campaigning against the "Moslem invasion". The wring thing here, as I see it, is that I don't really consider Denmark to be all that much of a Lutheran country, and it's not the 4% Moslem that have migrated into the country since the 1960ies that have any guilt in that. I'm not against Christians taking part in politics, but the kind of argumentation this party, and even this pastor uses, is ceratinly not according to my taste.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

Ok, I'll try to see if I can find that stone, so I can pull it out :)

- FreezBee

Jim47

14th January 2006, 09:24 AM

FreezBee]

I thought your question was interesting to say the least because as I have followed your messages on the board, I kind of thought you were a postmodern Lutheran who has kind of picked and chosen pieces without accepting anything as belonging because it is part of Christianity or Lutheranism.

Marv

Yes, my posts should show a variety of influences, and I'm not really trying to be a "hard-core" Lutheran Christian, so your observation is correct - I may be more of a "searcher" than a Lutheran.

So when you find a church, will it be man made beliefs or what God has taught us from scripture? I'm not meaning to sound rude, but you must realize that is what you are doing. That is how all of the man made religions evolved. Everyone knows that they need salvation, but only true Christians believe God's Word entirely and look only to Jesus, without the aide of our own righteousness

Breetai

14th January 2006, 11:07 AM

Is there really a problem, and if yes, what is the problem?Reincarnation is heretical. It'd say that is a major problem.

BigNorsk

14th January 2006, 12:22 PM

Minor issue (sorry for going off-course, FreezBee), but I have to mention that this definition of holistic medicine is flawed. Holistic medicine is not about diluting poisons. Holistic medicine encompases the analysis of physical, nutritional, environmental, emotional, and lifestyle elements of the person.

What you describe is homeopathy. It is a type of treatment sometimes used in holistic medicine, but is not, by necessity, a part of holistic medicine, any more than qigong, chiropractic, massage, acupuncture, aerobics, or eating nutritionally can be described alone holistic medicine.

Yes, I miswrote, I meant homeopathy.

I will go back and edit the message to lessen future confusion.

Thanks.
Marv

Protoevangel

14th January 2006, 12:26 PM

Yes, I miswrote, I meant homeopathy.

I will go back and edit the message to lessen future confusion.

Thanks.
MarvIt's all good, my brother!

FreezBee

15th January 2006, 08:01 AM

So when you find a church, will it be man made beliefs or what God has taught us from scripture? I'm not meaning to sound rude, but you must realize that is what you are doing. That is how all of the man made religions evolved. Everyone knows that they need salvation, but only true Christians believe God's Word entirely and look only to Jesus, without the aide of our own righteousness

What has God taught us from scripture? Unfortunately, that is not so easy to answer, and not all questions in life can find their answers in scripture, I would say. Scripture speaks of justification by faith, and that is where we start, but scripture does not tell me each ond every little detail about what to do and what not to do - we have to figure out some of the answers ourselves. Not necessarily unaided, but searching through the Bible each and every time you have to solve a problem is not necessarily going to bring about a solution. We may have to rely on our own judgment. I may be wrong here, but then again, if someone tells me, what God has taught us from scripture, how do I know, that person tells the truth and not just his/her own conviction?

Reincarnation is heretical. It'd say that is a major problem.

To believe in reincarnation is incompatible with my understanding of the Nicene Creed, and I believe with the most common understanding of that creed. As such it can be declared a heresy, but the problem is rather, why do people choose to believe in reincarnation? For me it is important that we have only this one life, which stresses that we have only one chance to make it right. Those who believe in reincarnation, are they looking for a second chance, and if so, why?

- FreezBee

SPALATIN

15th January 2006, 09:08 AM

What has God taught us from scripture? Unfortunately, that is not so easy to answer, and not all questions in life can find their answers in scripture, I would say. Scripture speaks of justification by faith, and that is where we start, but scripture does not tell me each ond every little detail about what to do and what not to do - we have to figure out some of the answers ourselves. Not necessarily unaided, but searching through the Bible each and every time you have to solve a problem is not necessarily going to bring about a solution. We may have to rely on our own judgment. I may be wrong here, but then again, if someone tells me, what God has taught us from scripture, how do I know, that person tells the truth and not just his/her own conviction?

To believe in reincarnation is incompatible with my understanding of the Nicene Creed, and I believe with the most common understanding of that creed. As such it can be declared a heresy, but the problem is rather, why do people choose to believe in reincarnation? For me it is important that we have only this one life, which stresses that we have only one chance to make it right. Those who believe in reincarnation, are they looking for a second chance, and if so, why?

- FreezBee

Freezbee,

People choose to believe in reincarnation because they want to believe that when their life is over here that it begins again somewhere else. However, the religions that teach reincarnation believe that reincarnation is re-birth based on how we lived this life. Many in the "OLD" Hindu faith believe that if we were good that we will be reincarnated into a better "caste". However, if we were not so good in our present life we may come back as a fly or other lesser species of being.

Only in the west do we consider reincarnation to be another Human life.

To me reincarnation is an insult to God. As you said it isn't compatible with the Nicene Creed. It also isn't compatible with scripture or any other creeds (Apostles, Athanasian). I think that those who believe in reincarnation will be sorely disappointed with the end result.

Jim47

15th January 2006, 09:37 AM

FreezBee
searching through the Bible each and every time you have to solve a problem is not necessarily going to bring about a solution. We may have to rely on our own judgment. I may be wrong here, but then again, if someone tells me, what God has taught us from scripture, how do I know, that person tells the truth and not just his/her own conviction?

So you believe we won't find the solution to our lifes problems? or We won't accept the solution? There is nothing new under the sun! No new sins, no new things forbidden nor anything taken away from what we should be doing. There are things that fall under adiaphora, such as what color shirt you want to wear today, but the bible even touches on dress. We should wear things that do not make us look like unbelievers.

As far as searching through the bible for the solution for every problem, that should be necessary only for really tuff decisions that may fall under adiphora but may have a great significance such as a Pastor trying to decide if he should accept a call or not. If you need to seach for common things, then a more thorough reading up front is what is needed.

FreezBee

15th January 2006, 10:33 AM

People choose to believe in reincarnation because they want to believe that when their life is over here that it begins again somewhere else. However, the religions that teach reincarnation believe that reincarnation is re-birth based on how we lived this life.

I'm not sure I understand, what you mean here. Where is "somewhere else"? I know of people that speculate in a transferral to another planet, but I don't think that these people consider them selves Christians - they rather interpret Jesus as a messenger from that planet.

Many in the "OLD" Hindu faith believe that if we were good that we will be reincarnated into a better "caste". However, if we were not so good in our present life we may come back as a fly or other lesser species of being.

Only in the west do we consider reincarnation to be another Human life.

True, Hindu reincarnation is tied to the caste system and does not transfer well into a western line of thinking. Though Plato writes in "The Republic" about reincarnation, but there it is based on choice - depending on the type of person you have been, you'll choose your reincarnation - well, as I remember "The Republic", that is :)

To me reincarnation is an insult to God. As you said it isn't compatible with the Nicene Creed. It also isn't compatible with scripture or any other creeds (Apostles, Athanasian). I think that those who believe in reincarnation will be sorely disappointed with the end result.

Yes, the question though is, should we simply condemn them, or try to understand why they are going astray? I'm here refering to those who still consider themselves to be Christian.

- FreezBee

FreezBee

15th January 2006, 10:53 AM

So you believe we won't find the solution to our lifes problems? or We won't accept the solution? There is nothing new under the sun! No new sins, no new things forbidden nor anything taken away from what we should be doing.

Not quite that simple, I'm afraid! You would be right in a static society, where children could simply follow in the footsteps of their parents. But should we do that? I'm from a family without an academic tradition, so did I sin by going to university? Christians do live in this world, though they should not be of it. We need to address problems, that don't have a clear Biblical answer. Should I be against evolution, because a literal reading of Genesis 1 states a 7 day creation? Well, Job 38-39 has an alternative creation story, but no one bothers to mention that! We are created in the image of our Creator and therefore we can rely on sound reasoning, and we may from time to time have to reevaluate, what tradition claims that the Bible says, simply because following the tradition would require you to claim that you live in another world than the one you live in. Well, that's how I see it :) God may be unchanging and eternal, but those properties don't transfer to the temporal world.

There are things that fall under adiaphora, such as what color shirt you want to wear today, but the bible even touches on dress. We should wear things that do not make us look like unbelievers.

But which things do not make us look like unbelievers? Of course, a T-shirt starting "I love Satan" may bring the wrong message, but apart from that, I doubt there is a certified way of discerning believers from non-believers by their dress.

As far as searching through the bible for the solution for every problem, that should be necessary only for really tuff decisions that may fall under adiphora but may have a great significance such as a Pastor trying to decide if he should accept a call or not. If you need to seach for common things, then a more thorough reading up front is what is needed.

Ok, thanks for the advice - and I also do try to read the Bible thoroughly, but I often find that what I have been told that the Bible says, is not always what I can read out it, so who's right, and who's wrong?

- FreezBee

Jim47

15th January 2006, 02:18 PM

:cry: FreezBee Should I be against evolution, because a literal reading of Genesis 1 states a 7 day creation? Well, Job 38-39 has an alternative creation story, but no one bothers to mention that!

I just read these 2 chapters twice, and I'm sorry but I don't see creation mentioned. Maybe you can point it out to me? Here is a link to an on line bible that you can copy and paste from.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/

We are created in the image of our Creator and therefore we can rely on sound reasoning, and we may from time to time have to reevaluate, what tradition claims that the Bible says, simply because following the tradition would require you to claim that you live in another world than the one you live in.

I don'y understand how we can rely on sound reasoning and human logic when our sinful nature is directly opposed to God and what "He states". Where does tradition have anything to do with the written word of God? I'm not following you here.

But which things do not make us look like unbelievers? Of course, a T-shirt starting "I love Satan" may bring the wrong message, but apart from that, I doubt there is a certified way of discerning believers from non-believers by their dress.

What I meant was, that we should not dress in a lude manner. That would be inapporopiate of a Christian.

Ok, thanks for the advice - and I also do try to read the Bible thoroughly, but I often find that what I have been told that the Bible says, is not always what I can read out it, so who's right, and who's wrong?

So isn't the problem that you fail to believe what you have read becasue it doesn't agree with your human logic? If not, maybe you can give me an example.

FreezBee

16th January 2006, 09:14 AM

I just read these 2 chapters twice, and I'm sorry but I don't see creation mentioned. Maybe you can point it out to me?

Well, here we have a bit of Job 38:

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

Isn't this telling about creation? I, for one, read it that way :)

I don'y understand how we can rely on sound reasoning and human logic when our sinful nature is directly opposed to God and what "He states". Where does tradition have anything to do with the written word of God? I'm not following you here.

I am not quite sure, what you mean by "our sinful nature". Sin is by definition trangression of a commandment of God, but I doubt that humans are created specifically to disobey God. In the Garden of Eden story, the snake asks Eve, if God really has forbidden her and Adam to eat from any of the trees in the garden, and Eve correctly answers "no". So it's more a question about how forbidding you consider God to be.

We cannot simply read the Bible and understand, what it says without interpreting it. There are taditional interpretations, e.g. that the creation story in Genesis 1 is to be read as a literal story. This poses a serious problem today for many Christians, because modern science teaches us otherwise. Was the Bible ever intended to be a natural science book? I don't think so, and therefore I personally don't have a problem, but many other Christians have problems, because they are taught that they cannot be both Christians and accept the theory of evolution and the big bang theory. Interpretations are human interpretations, and therefore temporal interpretations. Look as such an issue as whether Christians should follow the Torah commandments. Some say yes, but only consider the 10 Commandments to be implied. Others try to modernize other commandments and apply them to a modern world. Who's right? Even the 10 Commandments can find different interpretations. A Danish pastor has written a "Little Cathechism for Adults", in which he for the 6th Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") mostly writes about the duty of being of being a soldier - so he is turning the 6th Commandment into the opposite of what it literally says!

What I meant was, that we should not dress in a lude manner. That would be inapporopiate of a Christian. [QUOTE=Jim47]

Ok, I'm not to sure about, what "lude" means, but I have an idea :blush:

[QUOTE=Jim47]
So isn't the problem that you fail to believe what you have read becasue it doesn't agree with your human logic? If not, maybe you can give me an example.

Well, I am a human, so I have a human logic, what's wrong with that?

But ok, an example - I have serious problems with reconsiling what I read in the Bible about Satan, and what Christians tell me about Satan and about hell. Traditionally the snake in Genesis 3 is identified with Satan. But what does that mean? This snake is also identified with Leviathan, mentioned in Job and also in Isaiah 27. But Leviathan is a mythological water-living creature, not a snake. My human logic says that we can't ignore the context. But I am course just a sinful human being :)

- FreezBee

Jim47

16th January 2006, 09:32 AM

Thanks for the come back, but I don't have time to reply now, other than to say that the passages you pointed out in Job do not disagree with the creation account. Maybe you are reading something else into it?

SPALATIN

16th January 2006, 11:24 AM

I'm not sure I understand, what you mean here. Where is "somewhere else"? I know of people that speculate in a transferral to another planet, but I don't think that these people consider them selves Christians - they rather interpret Jesus as a messenger from that planet.

I meant earth and/or another continent. But you are correct since there have been cults that have taught their people about a spaceship coming to transport them to a new planet to live.

Yes, the question though is, should we simply condemn them, or try to understand why they are going astray? I'm here refering to those who still consider themselves to be Christian.

- FreezBee

First of all it is not our right to condemn them but to point them to Christ through the scriptures. When they talk like this they have already gone "astray" in some part of their thinking. We can't do anything more than point to Christ and let the Holy Spirit take it from there.

BigNorsk

16th January 2006, 01:55 PM

I think it should be noted that the original manuscripts don't actually say Leviathan. They refer to a sea creature that to this day we don't exactly know. Some think a sea crocodile, some think something else.

Leviathan has been used for the purpose of translation but not too much should be read into that.

It would be somewhat similar to where the KJV translators used unicorn in another place for a creature they didn't know. There we have gotten a pretty good idea that the creature talked about is an extinct ox.

You still run into people that think Christ was crucified on a straight post like the horn of a unicorn an "l" if you will, instead of what we believe is the shape of the horns of an ox, more of a "T" shape. People get into that minor difficulty because they get where they trust that where the KJV says unicorn it is a unicorn and is exactly that.

I would guess you could call the KJV a paraphrase in those areas, they didn't know an exact literal word to plug in their so they took something from the culture that they existed in and plugged it in instead. We still don't know exactly what the word that many still translate as Leviathan refers to.

It's pretty difficult in the case of Leviathan to look at the passages with it and say there is a conflict with Genesis. Our knowledge doesn't let us know exactly what creature is being talked about.

Marv

FreezBee

16th January 2006, 02:07 PM

[/font]First of all it is not our right to condemn them but to point them to Christ through the scriptures. When they talk like this they have already gone "astray" in some part of their thinking. We can't do anything more than point to Christ and let the Holy Spirit take it from there.

Yes, you are rigth that it is not our right to condemn (nor to grant salvation). Excuse me for my formulation :sorry:

What I meant is, are we to consider people that believe in reincarnation to be non-Christian or just to have been led astray? As mentioned in the OP the parish council did fire the employee due to his belief in reincarnation. Did the parish council do the right thing or the wrong thing? That's what I mean, if that makes my position clearer.

- FreezBee

FreezBee

16th January 2006, 02:13 PM

SPALATIN

16th January 2006, 02:36 PM

Yes, you are rigth that it is not our right to condemn (nor to grant salvation). Excuse me for my formulation :sorry:

What I meant is, are we to consider people that believe in reincarnation to be non-Christian or just to have been led astray? As mentioned in the OP the parish council did fire the employee due to his belief in reincarnation. Did the parish council do the right thing or the wrong thing? That's what I mean, if that makes my position clearer.

- FreezBee

It is hard because the church in Denmark is a State-run church so it begs the question as to whether the State was really concerned with this pastor's confession or was it just appeasing those who brought forth the complaint. As it remains right now the pastor has been restored to his post.

If the church were free to exist as an entity and allow for polity apart from Government I would say that removing him for making this a part of his confession would have been wise. In doing so it would not be condemnation, but rather a move to bring the Pastor to repentence for giving a confession that is apart from scripture. If he does not repent he has condemned himself, but if he does repent it is God who has convicted him of his indiscretion.

I don't pretend to understand a church that allows the Government to get involved in how it is run, but it goes back to the days of the HRE.

Jim47

16th January 2006, 09:15 PM

FreezBee

Well, here we have a bit of Job 38:

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

Isn't this telling about creation? I, for one, read it that way :)

true, it is mentioning creation, but where does it disagree with what is stated in Genesis?

I am not quite sure, what you mean by "our sinful nature". Sin is by definition trangression of a commandment of God, but I doubt that humans are created specifically to disobey God. In the Garden of Eden story, the snake asks Eve, if God really has forbidden her and Adam to eat from any of the trees in the garden, and Eve correctly answers "no". So it's more a question about how forbidding you consider God to be.

I'm guessing that you don't believe in what is called "origional sin"
Psa 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,

sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

[QUOTE]We cannot simply read the Bible and understand, what it says without interpreting it. There are taditional interpretations, e.g. that the creation story in Genesis 1 is to be read as a literal story. This poses a serious problem today for many Christians, because modern science teaches us otherwise. Was the Bible ever intended to be a natural science book? I don't think so, and therefore I personally don't have a problem, but many other Christians have problems, because they are taught that they cannot be both Christians and accept the theory of evolution and the big bang theory. Interpretations are human interpretations, and therefore temporal interpretations.

I do not accept science in what they think can do in prooving the bibles creation account or disprooving it. As for some peoples problems with this, certainly they are going to have problems when they deny the very Word of God.

Look as such an issue as whether Christians should follow the Torah commandments. Some say yes, but only consider the 10 Commandments to be implied. Others try to modernize other commandments and apply them to a modern world. Who's right? Even the 10 Commandments can find different interpretations. A Danish pastor has written a "Little Cathechism for Adults", in which he for the 6th Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") mostly writes about the duty of being of being a soldier - so he is turning the 6th Commandment into the opposite of what it literally says!

I have never read the torah and likely never will. I have no interest in the worlds kind of knowledge. I trust the bible.

As for your Danish Pastor, he should be ashamed of himself.

Ok, I'm not to sure about, what "lude" means, but I have an idea :blush:

Lude is an expression of saying that you are indecent in a sexual manner, either by dress or by action

KEPLER

16th January 2006, 09:23 PM

I have never read the torah and likely never will. I have no interest in the worlds kind of knowledge. I trust the bible.

Ermmm, Jim..."torah" = Old Testament. I suspect you have indeed read it.;)

To both of you, the spelling is "lewd" not "lude". Sorry, the grammar legalist in me is out of control tonight.

Cheers to you both!

Kepler

Jim47

16th January 2006, 10:32 PM

Ermmm, Jim..."torah" = Old Testament. I suspect you have indeed read it.;)

To both of you, the spelling is "lewd" not "lude". Sorry, the grammar legalist in me is out of control tonight.

Cheers to you both!

Kepler

:blush: Me feels like'm fool

SPALATIN

17th January 2006, 11:47 AM

GRAMMAR POLICE ALERT--GRAMMAR POLICE ALERT

These words should be at the top of any correction of punctuation or speling mistakes.

Oops I mean Spelling mistakes.

FreezBee

17th January 2006, 01:36 PM

If the church were free to exist as an entity and allow for polity apart from Government I would say that removing him for making this a part of his confession would have been wise. In doing so it would not be condemnation, but rather a move to bring the Pastor to repentence for giving a confession that is apart from scripture. If he does not repent he has condemned himself, but if he does repent it is God who has convicted him of his indiscretion.

The problem in ths particular case mentioned in my OP was whether the parish council was right in fireing an employee. So it's not purely a confessional question. Apparently there was no critique of the employee's work, only of his belief in reincarnation. I do not know the rules for other Lutheran churches, but for the Danish, Lutheran church the rule is that only yourself can resign your membership. The High Court decision therefore was purely based on whether the employee had de facto resigned his membership of the church or not.

By the way, sorry to point to this, SPALATIN, but it appears to me as if you are confusing the case in the OP with the case of Thorkild Grossbøll, which is a different case - but of course also a case of statement of belief that is not compatible with accepted Danish Lutheranism.

- FreezBee

FreezBee

17th January 2006, 02:01 PM

true, it is mentioning creation, but where does it disagree with what is stated in Genesis?

In the quoted part, the morning stars are around at the creation of earth, not created later as Genesis 1 has it. Also notice that the morning stars = angels = sons of God.

I'm guessing that you don't believe in what is called "origional sin"
Psa 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,

sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Well, let's look at the headline of the Psalm 51:

For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.

Truly a time for David to admit sinfulness! But I do agree that we sin, but not because we have a sinful nature - it may be a semantic problem we have here :)

I don't consider humans in general to have a propensity to commit sins. And also notice that David is in general in the Bible described as very loyal to God!

I do not accept science in what they think can do in prooving the bibles creation account or disprooving it. As for some peoples problems with this, certainly they are going to have problems when they deny the very Word of God.

Jesus is the Word of God. We need to interpret the Bible with the help of Jesus. To deny a literal intepreatation of Genesis is not to deny the very Word of God. Many Christians have problems with the literal view - you can show your love towards them by telling them that the literal interpretation is not the only interpretation, if you see what I mean :)

I have never read the torah and likely never will. I have no interest in the worlds kind of knowledge. I trust the bible.

The Torah is the 5 Books of Moses, also called the Petateuch, so I trust you have read it. Or do I misunderstand you?

As for your Danish Pastor, he should be ashamed of himself.

Well, I would personally say it's a bit weird to be pastor in a church and then claim to be an atheist, it's hypocritical to me. But I attended a meeting with him, where he moderated some of his statements, and to me it sounded ok. So if you accept a repenting sinner, he should be ok.

Lude is an expression of saying that you are indecent in a sexual manner, either by dress or by action

Ok, that's what I thought, but it's always nice to learn new words.

- FreezBee

SPALATIN

17th January 2006, 02:03 PM

The problem in ths particular case mentioned in my OP was whether the parish council was right in fireing an employee. So it's not purely a confessional question. Apparently there was no critique of the employee's work, only of his belief in reincarnation. I do not know the rules for other Lutheran churches, but for the Danish, Lutheran church the rule is that only yourself can resign your membership. The High Court decision therefore was purely based on whether the employee had de facto resigned his membership of the church or not.

By the way, sorry to point to this, SPALATIN, but it appears to me as if you are confusing the case in the OP with the case of Thorkild Grossbøll, which is a different case - but of course also a case of statement of belief that is not compatible with accepted Danish Lutheranism.

- FreezBee

Sorry for the confusion. I don't follow Danish Lutheran issues very much but had heard of the Thorkild Grossboll incident last year. I naturally made an assumption that you were speaking of the same thing. Again my apologies.

If a Pastor is called by God through the congregation he is not an employee of the congregation but of God. For a Parish council to fire him they would have to have just cause like heresy or infidelity. Reincarnation could be construed as heretical based on scripture.

FreezBee

17th January 2006, 02:05 PM

Ermmm, Jim..."torah" = Old Testament. I suspect you have indeed read it.

Just to be pedantic; the Torah is the Pentateuch, "the law", not the entire OT :)

To both of you, the spelling is "lewd" not "lude". Sorry, the grammar legalist in me is out of control tonight.

That explains, why websters couln't find it for me.

Cheers to you both!

And cheers to you :)

- FreezBee

Protoevangel

17th January 2006, 06:19 PM

Just to be pedantic; the Torah is the Pentateuch, "the law", not the entire OT :)
Torah is sometimes the name given to the Five Books of Moses (Chumash, or Pentateuch).

Torah can also refer to the whole Bible (Tanach).

Torah is also used to cover the whole body of Jewish teaching - both written and oral. That includes the Tanach, the Mishna, the Talmud (Oral Torah) and many others. :)

FreezBee

18th January 2006, 08:45 AM

Torah is sometimes the name given to the Five Books of Moses (Chumash, or Pentateuch).

Are you sure it is "sometimes"? As I've understood, it is rather "usually" - the "Torah" being "ha'Torah Moshe", the Law of Moses.

Torah can also refer to the whole Bible (Tanach).

Yes, sometimes, "Torah" may be interpreted to refer to the TaNaKh, the name of which is derived like this: Torah (the Law), Nebiim (the Prophets), and Khetubim (the Writings) :)

The Tanakh comprises the same texts as a protestand Old Testament, but the order is different, and the texts are divided into the three sections indicated.

Torah is also used to cover the whole body of Jewish teaching - both written and oral. That includes the Tanach, the Mishna, the Talmud (Oral Torah) and many others. :)

Yes, as I've understood, the word "torah" means something like "instruction" rather than "law", so any instructional text might be considered part of the Torah, so ok, I should have said "the Pentateuch" instead to avoid misunderstandings :bow:

- FreezBee

FreezBee

18th January 2006, 08:55 AM

A Danish pastor has written a "Little Cathechism for Adults", in which he for the 6th Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") mostly writes about the duty of being a soldier - so he is turning the 6th Commandment into the opposite of what it literally says!

As for your Danish Pastor, he should be ashamed of himself.

I just realized that I had myself confused in my reply to this :sorry:

You are of course here referring to the pastor mentioned in your quote, not to Thorkild Grossbøll!

Of course, I agree with you that a pastor should loyally explain the meaning of a commandment, not employ it to support a political stance. I would personally have considered it ok for him to mention soldiers in the context of the 6th commandment, but then to explain how the commandment applies to them.

Again excuses for my misunderstanding of your post :bow:

- FreezBee