A Realization

[Fish and Bread]

I ponder religious questions a lot, particularly thinking about how they might relate to me and my own spirituality. One thing I've rejected since my earliest years is the concept of anything God doing being automatically ethical, which seems predicated on a basic assumption that might equals right, and I believe that might does not equal right. If God decrees that people should be eternally tormented in hellfire, it does not make it okay simply because he is God and he created us or because he is God and has the power to allow for that sort of thing.

Likewise, these moral systems, these ethical codes that God has given us, or that we have constructed for ourselves, they're essentially an advanced form of control or manipulation, or, at the least, an advanced form of obsessive compulsive disorder that is well-intentionally put forth as divine.

I returned to Christianity a few years ago because for me the imagery is immesely powerful. The trinitarian nature of God, the wonder of creation, the cross, Jesus feeding the multitudes, the parting of the Red Sea, all the wonderful poetry and verse, "Love one another as I have loved you", etc. I love going to a Eucharist on a Saturday night or a Sunday morning, breathing in the incense, singing familar songs, taking the bread and the wine, participating with community in a sense of wonder and awe and mystery.

Ultimately, though, I've struggled to identify by identity as a Christian with my essential rejection of some of the basic premises -- hell, sin as transgression against anything God wants, moral law beyond the basics, oblations and sacrifice, etc. As I spent more time in the faith, I tried to force myself to reshape my worldview, to conform to the fundamentlaly immoral doctrines that were present side by side with the wonderful good ones in Christianity. In communicating with the Catholic Christian God, I felt oppressed more than sustained, damned more than saved. It was only when I could manage to step outside those boundries and what I believed in my heart about God, and to view God very differently, that I could find glimmers of peace in prayer and in sharing.

To me, Christianity is the beginning of something good, the best we have right now religion wise, a step in a process of religious evolution that ultimately should lead elsewhere. I realize now that, though my spirituality is intrinsically typed with the Jesus mythos, with the Christian bible, and with the Christian liturgy and traditions, it is not actually Christian in the same sense of Augustine or Calvin or Luther or any of the Popes. They believed in hell, they did not believe in the goodness of homosexuality, they did not believe that God is love in the same way that I believe God is love; their definition of love was and is fundamentally different from mine. Their definition of words like freedom, likewise, were and are fundamentally different than mine. If their God is the true God, I want no part of that.

It is odd and scary to realize that I am not Christian in the sense of what's put forth in the bible or in tradition or maybe even in the sense that the historical Jesus was Christian. At the same time, though, I'm not sure I ever was. I tried to reconcile what I thought with what the bible set forth and believed I had at some points, but it was a stretch. The more I know of the bible, the more I know of the early Christians who would today be viewed as orthodox; the less it is sustainable to imagine myself as one of them in a strict sense.

I think I have finally come to a conclusion about all this and it's that I am a Christian in the sense of Christianity being my spiritual heritage. I am Christian in the sense of enjoying the rituals and some of the philosophies and so forth. I am Christian in the sense of having a worldview shaped in powerful ways by the Christian mythos. I am Christian in the sense of having a bible, and in enjoying reading it. I am Christian in the sense that when I think of God, I view the face and the image of Jesus. I am Christian in the sense that I will probably be going to church at least semi-regularly until the day I die.

What I am not is Christian in the sense of the Christianity of the ages. I am a new Christian, as different from the old Christians as the early Christians were from the Jews. I am part of Christianity and yet not part. The same, yet different.

I think I probably feel a lot like some of the Unitarians and Universalists felt when they realized the end of their early philosophies. At first, the Unitarians were Christians who believed the bible did not sustain the notion of the trinity, at first the Universalists were Christians who believed that the bible did not sustain the notion of hell. Ultimately, I think the collective subconcious of those groups realized that they simply did not believe in the literal sense of the bible as the direct word of God. Hence, we see the Unitarian Universalists of today as a group that is no longer confessionally Christian, but have Christian roots.

I don't think I can go to where they went in the sense that I feel far too attached to the Christian mythos and don't really have a desire to substitute a variety of mythos in it's place. The UU service I visited years ago featured a pagan prayer to the earth goddess, a hint of Buddhism, a hint of Christianity, etc. It was nice, but I don't think it was for me. I want a familar liturgy and familar prayers and so forth.

Oddly enough, I don't think this realization means I can't be Episcopalian. In fact, this probably puts me more in line with a lot of our bishops than I was before in the sense of my beliefs. That's kind of a funny thing to realize. I think the Episcopal Church is in the birth pangs of a new sort of Christianity, whether they conconciously realize it or not.

So, anyhow, I just wanted to get that off my chest, for what it's worth. I don't know if I technically can keep the Anglican icon according to the rules, so if the moderators feel the need to change me to something else, that's fine with me. I want to be a good CF citizen. :)

[IowaLutheran]

Bless you, Fish and Bread, for your soul-searching post.

Its strange how you posted this at this time because the other day I was thinking how for awhile I really was fascinated by Marcus Borg-style Christianity, but recently I have pretty much shaken that off and have become more comfortable with orthodoxy.

Previously, I believed that I had to have 100% acceptance of doctrine to be an orthodox Christian, so the arguments of Borg appeared logical and attractive to me as an alternative. Now, I have come to the conclusion that my brain will never be 100% convinced that the essentials of Nicene Christianity are true, and that realization has led to my shift back toward orthodoxy. The idea that one's faith must be certain is a fallacy of modern evangelical protestantism that I have fallen into; now that I have recognized that, I am more comfortable with orthodox Christianity.

I don't know if that makes sense but it is where my journey has taken me. Yours has taken you elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, you are still a Christian.

[Fish and Bread]

Bless you, Fish and Bread, for your soul-searching post.

Thank you. :)

[gtsecc]

Justice gets its essence from God.
What ever God wants to do is justice.
You can't get at it any other way.

[Fish and Bread]

Justice gets its essence from God.
What ever God wants to do is justice.
You can't get at it any other way.

I had a discussion about that with a Roman Catholic priest recently, actually. He raised the point you made in more elaborate detail. I understood why he felt that way, but what it made me realize is that I don't believe in justice in the traditional sense Christians understand justice. It was an epiphany of sorts.

It really came home when we talked about prisions and he made the point, as a way of illustrated by analogy the traditional view of divine justice, that we don't just imprision people to keep society safe and deter future criminals, we do it out of a sense of justice. I've never agreed with justice in the sense he meant it in. I've always felt like if we could somehow prevent people from committing crimes again and at the same time disuade future criminals, I'd have no problem with not sending people to jail. The reason I support jail sentences is because it keeps criminals off the streets, provides them with negative reinforcement, and gives potential criminals something to ponder (ie "If I commit a crime, I might go to jail, maybe I'd better not"). This concept of justice as retribution I don't buy into. Never have, really, when I think back on it, though I haven't always realized that I haven't bought into it. Justice as retribution is basically just vengence, and to me vengence has no place as an instrument of civilized society, or as an instrument of God, for that matter. It's a base thing that appeals to the worst in us, not a Godly thing in the sense of being uplifting and good.

[gtsecc]

You can't come up with any sort of system other than might makes right, without a God.
And, then in the end, any system of justice basically comes down to pleasing God or Displeasing God.
By the definition of Justice - if God does it, it is just.

I completely disagree with what you said the RC Preist said.

[Fish and Bread]

You can't come up with any sort of system other than might makes right, without a God.

What about love, compassion, acceptance, tolerance, and respect for the human dignity of all persons make right? :)

[gtsecc]

What about love, compassion, acceptance, tolerance, and respect for the human dignity of all persons make right? :)
Etiquette, manners, but not justice.

[Fish and Bread]

Etiquette, manners, but not justice.



As I said, I fundamentally disagree with justice as it's been traditionally defined in Christiandom. :)

By the way, I'm happy to continue this conversation and start others on this thread, but if the moderators determine that my icon needs to be changed, I'll no longer be allowed to post here in the Christian-only area, so if I don't seem to reply for a couple days, check my user icon, that could be why (And anyone who would like can feel free to private message me, or say hi in the Alehouse, which is open to all). :)

[gtsecc]

As I said, I fundamentally disagree with justice as it's been traditionally defined in Christiandom. :)


I never said a Christian GOd.
Everyone who thinks about it long enough comes to the conclusion that you can't have justice outside of a God - even Agnostics and Atheists.

[Fish and Bread]

I never said a Christian GOd.
Everyone who thinks about it long enough comes to the conclusion that you can't have justice outside of a God - even Agnostics and Atheists.

It all depends on what is meant by justice. Humanists tend to believe that justice is defined as respecting other humans and living in harmony with one another and that it is implicit in the order of things, whether that order comes from God, from humankind, or from a random process of things coming into being.

If justice is defined as punishment for all wrongdoing, then maybe in an ultimate sense only God can meet that out, but I don't believe that sort of justice is, well, justified. I reject it's moral basises.

[Wiffey]

I totally get where you are coming from...I've recently done quite a bit of soul searching, touching on similar topics. Justice is an odd concept. The God I believe in is a God of love and mercy, as opposed to an angry God of retribution and recrimination. And I do not envision my God sending people to Hell for eternity for some temporary sins...again, that (IMO) is even harsher than any punishments humans could devise and God is supposed to be better than us. I tend to believe in Grace more than Justice...

But I don't totally discount the possibility of some form of correction/consequences for truly evil people (like Hitler,etc)...

I do totally reject the idea that all non-Christians will suffer forever because they were ignorant about Jesus.

I think Christianity is undergoing some growing pains as our human societies continue to evolve and our ethics evolve as we question the status quo. While it may be trying and difficult, I think it is healthy and, ultimately, God made us smart so we could reason and grow. The only sure thing in life is this...that things change. Why should our understanding of God be frozen at the point of our understanding at the date of, say, the 7th Ecumenical council? For goodness sake, we have grown in leaps and bounds WRT knowledge and scientific discovery since then...are we so afraid that God can't withstand scrutiny? We can be good Christians and live in the 21st Century. We needn't confine ourselves to a millenia old sensibility...because we will go nuts trying to apply the rules to our completely different way of life. Faith can survive and adapt to modernity...but it may require busting out of old paradigms.

I think you are indeed a Christian. Jesus was not afraid to confront the Pharisees and the ossified status quo of His time...we should be able to acknowledge the role of reason and conscience and respect our fellow Christians and acknowledge the reality of their faith even if we do not always agree on specifics.

I wish you all the best on your search for authentic faith.:wave:

[karen freeinchristman]

I think you are indeed a Christian.

I do, too. Perhaps a 'post-modern' Christian. You are in good company.

[SeenAndUnseen]

"Justice is mine" saith the Lord. I suppose then that whatever ends up happening is ultimately Justice. We can't see it yet, not any of it or the reasons behind it. It is entirely possible that our "through a glass, darkly" vision of everything is somehow serving that ultimate justice that lies beyond our comprehension. I often wonder what justice is. I think that Christianity speaks to me saying "Know that you do not know. Trust in God's mercy and love. Do not worry and do not be afraid." But that is not easy in a world where only 1 out of 5 people on the mean streets is an intellectual, and where justice sometimes means something even darker than what we find in our civilized institutions.
I believe that Jesus was fully God, fully Man, born of the Blessed Virgin, and given to us as a great light and a hope that justice will be something better than what we are capable of imagining. I do not believe He came here to build a big fence to keep people outside or to divide anyone -- but He knew we would do that ourselves, and he still came to save all. All. So my idea of Christianity is also very different than what doctrinal professions state. I am very open to the evolving Church and its changing role. I am encouraged by its message for our times. I don't think you're as far out in left field as you might feel yourself to be.

[Thomas2618]

I do not believe He came here to build a big fence to keep people outside or to divide anyone -- but He knew we would do that ourselves, and he still came to save all. All.

Jesus said himself that the way is very narrow. He was very clear. He offered his gift to all, but we must accept that in the way that he laid out.

[Fish and Bread]

Jesus said himself that the way is very narrow. He was very clear.

That's the biblical vision, but it's a vision I don't accept. I think in doing that, it may put me outside many historical markers of Christianity, even though I at my core see God through the stories of Jesus and the traditions which grew out of them. I see the bible and historical Christianity as insightfully, but fallibly on several key points, pointing to a moral truth (Which may or may not relate to God) yet to be revealed.

It's kind a tough thing to admit, even to myself. I sort of came into Christianity feeling that way and was tugged into orthodoxy, only to finally realize that I was correct in the first place. Kind of full circle, so to speak. Yet, I feel like in admitting it to myself, a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. "The truth shall set ye free" and this is the truth about how I feel.

[SeenAndUnseen]

Jesus said himself that the way is very narrow. He was very clear. He offered his gift to all, but we must accept that in the way that he laid out.

That is true. But which is the narrow gate? What did he lay out? Love. Do not cast the first stone. Go, and sin no more. Forgive. Sacrifice. Was the sacrifice of Jesus only to win some of mankind the chance to make a dubious choice, or was the prize something larger? I just wonder.

[Inside Edge]

I don't think you're as far out in left field as you might feel yourself to be.
No kidding. F&B: I hope there's no pride motivation when you label yourself outside the box, because in my experience, you're just not that different :) I've heard homilies in church very similar to what you've posted. Maybe you ought to just come up to Vancouver so you can feel like one of the pack for a change!

Jesus said himself that the way is very narrow. He was very clear
He was, was he? How so?

Now, if the way is narrow, and there is 2 billion (give or take) old-style Christians...and 2 billion (give or take) long-gone old-style Christians...

...well, that must be one very wide narrow path.

[Fish and Bread]

No kidding. F&B: I hope there's no pride motivation when you label yourself outside the box, because in my experience, you're just not that different :) I've heard homilies in church very similar to what you've posted. Maybe you ought to just come up to Vancouver so you can feel like one of the pack for a change!

I think maybe it's a combination of my ultra-conservative traditionalist relatives, a right-leaning (by Anglican standards) forum, and my right-leaning (by Episcopalian standards) parish that make my comments seem really out of left-field to me. I've had exposure to progressive Christianity, obviously, but not on an everyday level where I really internalize it -- an occasional book or random visit to a parish here or there.

[Lel]

I ponder religious questions a lot, particularly thinking about how they might relate to me and my own spirituality. One thing I've rejected since my earliest years is the concept of anything God doing being automatically ethical, which seems predicated on a basic assumption that might equals right, and I believe that might does not equal right. If God decrees that people should be eternally tormented in hellfire, it does not make it okay simply because he is God and he created us or because he is God and has the power to allow for that sort of thing.

Likewise, these moral systems, these ethical codes that God has given us, or that we have constructed for ourselves, they're essentially an advanced form of control or manipulation, or, at the least, an advanced form of obsessive compulsive disorder that is well-intentionally put forth as divine.

Just because I might have morally really screwed things up doesn't mean God has done the same.

God may be right and humans have screwed up God's moral codes.

[Thomas2618]

Just because I might have morally really screwed things up doesn't mean God has done the same.

God may be right and humans have screwed up God's moral codes.

Am I the only one that has a HUGE problem with this idea...I mean if that is true then I can't really trust anything I hear in church, and then I don't know what to believe because I can't trust one thing about Christianity, and then I get really scared because I would begin to feel uncertain about EVERYTHING, and that is really a stressful state of mind. That line of thinking just seems really uneasy and scary.
Now, traditional Christianity is something that I can trust, as it has been around for 2000 years. We as imperfect humans have rested in the bride of Christ, the Church. My faith is a belief in something tangible, just as I have faith in the chair I'm sitting in.

[Lel]

Am I the only one that has a HUGE problem with this idea...I mean if that is true then I can't really trust anything I hear in church, and then I don't know what to believe because I can't trust one thing about Christianity, and then I get really scared because I would begin to feel uncertain about EVERYTHING, and that is really a stressful state of mind. That line of thinking just seems really uneasy and scary.
Now, traditional Christianity is something that I can trust, as it has been around for 2000 years. We as imperfect humans have rested in the bride of Christ, the Church. My faith is a belief in something tangible, just as I have faith in the chair I'm sitting in.

Maybe I should clarify.

I mean that although God is perfect and the Church as a whole is perfect, we humans are not so perfect. We need not judge Christ by the individual Christians sometimes.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

If truth is eternal and unchanging, and Christ is the eternal way, truth, and the life, how can you say that God or Christianity is "changing"?

God does not change.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8

In XC,

Maureen

[karen freeinchristman]

If truth is eternal and unchanging, and Christ is the eternal way, truth, and the life, how can you say that God or Christianity is "changing"?

God does not change.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8

Truth IS eternal and unchanging - agreed.

Since God exists eternally, outside of time, and God is truth and love, then truth and love do not change, ever.

But when we say, "God does not change", we can be mislead into thinking that the way we see God cannot change.

Due to our limited ability to grasp eternal things or even things outside our own constructs, our omnipresent God (with his plan for his creation only truly known by himself), in working out his plan, does cause people to change. Situations have to change in order for God's Kingdom to come fully. Things cannot possibly stay the way they are. People, in response to God's love, and in the desire to do his will, help God to bring justice to the earth; to the oppressed, the unloved, and to the undefended.

God doesn't change. Truth doesn't change. Love doesn't change. We can't comprehend these things fully. Things do change, and people do change. God's priorities do not change; but how we understand his priorities can change.

That is why Christianity, as a response to the grace of God, can and should 'evolve' over time, in my view.

[SirTimothy]

"If you can understand it, it's not God"--St. Augustine.

Timothy

[gtsecc]

This Revelation of yours may be correct, but it is inconsistant with how God has been understood by the Church for the last 2,000 years.

[karen freeinchristman]

This Revelation of yours may be correct, but it is inconsistant with how God has been understood by the Church for the last 2,000 years.

I knew I could count on you for a response, gtsecc! :)

[Thomas2618]

If truth is eternal and unchanging, and Christ is the eternal way, truth, and the life, how can you say that God or Christianity is "changing"?

God does not change.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8

In XC,

Maureen


God doesn't change. Truth doesn't change. Love doesn't change. We can't comprehend these things fully. Things do change, and people do change. God's priorities do not change; but how we understand his priorities can change.

That is why Christianity, as a response to the grace of God, can and should 'evolve' over time, in my view.

Great posts! In lieu of Christ's promise that the Church would be led into all Truth, we cannot or should not "change" our understanding so something completely different from what she has taught for 2000 years. As humans, we are far from perfect and have limited capacity to understand God, and therefore our understanding of the Faith once delivered to the Saints can grow, but cannot "change" in such a way that central issues in Christianity are changed or thrown out.

[karen freeinchristman]

Great posts! In lieu of Christ's promise that the Church would be led into all Truth, we cannot or should not "change" our understanding so something completely different from what she has taught for 2000 years. As humans, we are far from perfect and have limited capacity to understand God, and therefore our understanding of the Faith once delivered to the Saints can grow, but cannot "change" in such a way that central issues in Christianity are changed or thrown out.
Yes, I agree. Our understanding can grow (which to me implies change), but the gospel doesn't change; never has and never will. The good news brought to us by Jesus Christ, showing us the way of reconciliation with God, doesn't change. The Church's understanding of it all grows and 'changes' over time.
:)

[Simon_Templar]

Fish,

I said goodbye to the forums a while back, and still intend to maintain my absence for the most part. However I do stop by from time to time just to see whats going on. I could not restrain myself from responding to this thread.

First I must preface all that I say with the statement that I do not presume to judge the state of your spirit or soul, or your eternal fate, and I do not do so for fear that I should underestimate the grace and mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

However, the view that you have expressed thus far is in no way "christian". It is, in fact, the very opposite of christian. The root of what you have expressed is exactly the same as the original sin that seperated our race from God and brought death upon us.
The basic temptation offered to Adam and Eve by the serpent was that they could become their own gods, knowing good and evil for themselves, apart from God. It is often thought, vainly, by humanists and gnostics that God sought to with hold knowledge from Adam and Eve by forbidding the tree. This is not so. God was giving knowledge to them, the only issue was what would be the source and measure of their knowledge.
In the conversation of Eve and the Serpent it is evident that she knew it was wrong and evil to eat of the tree.. she did not sin from niavity or ignorance, but willfully in a desire to have knowledge apart from God, and to be equal with God.
Furthermore, the result of this sin is unavoidable when you consider the teaching of the whole of scripture. God is holy utterly and completely holy.. this means he is entirely pure. The concept of holiness is something the bible also refers to as "singleness" or "oneness" in modern terms we might call it homogeneous. It is impossible for there to be anything within God which is contrary to God, or even other than God.

thus, when adam and eve chose to have knowledge apart from God, in an act of disobedience, which was an act of seperating their will from God's.. the unavodiably seperated themselves from God. Cut themselves off from communion with him, from his life, from his goodness, love, mercy etc. This can be seen as punnishment, but more so it is simply the result, the necessary consequence of their action.

We being in the likeness and image of God still have a semblance of what He is, we have a semblance of life, a semblance of goodness, of love, of mercy and so on but it is marred and ruined. That is the state of our mortality, and that is what Christ came to fix.

Now, when you say that you do not believe God to be just, or his actions to be just you are holding God to a standard. Gtsecc attempted to make a very valid true point that apart from an almighty God, there is no standard. Thus the action of holding God to a standard, aside from being unwise, is also illogical. If you attempt to hold God to a standard there are only two options to choose from.. either you make yourself the standard (which is merely a repetition of the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden) or you believe that there is a standard apart from God which is higher than God.

In the first case, you make youself the standard (which is the recourse of secular humanism and ethical atheists) it is really just an exercise in illogical reasoning. For if there is a God, and we are his creations, for us to dictate to God is the lower attempting to criticize the higher. Whatever true knowledge of justice we have as creations must come from God.. how then can we hope to justly criticize him? If on the other hand there is no God, then there is also no over arching morality, no such thing as right and wrong.. only expedient or not expedient, doable, or not doable, able, or not able.

In order for there to be anything other than "might makes right" there must be an over arching all knowing, all just, all authoritative God who decrees from himself what justice is, what right is... because with out that there is only each person's prefrence and their ability to force their prefrence on others. So the only way to avoid "might makes right" is for there to be a God like the God of the bible.. and if there is such a God, you not only have not right to hold him to account, it is impossible and absurd for you to think that you could do so justly as he himself is the source and standard of all justice.

If you opt for the second case and believe that there is a standard apart from God, and above God, that standard must have arisen from some source, it must be backed by some authority through which it governs both you and God.. where-ever it derives from, and derives its authority from would be in essense the real God.. thus all you are doing is arguing that one god is false and there must be a different higher God.
However, in your discussion thus far you have given no source other than yourself for your convictions of morality and justice thus it would seem that the reality is that you are exalting yourself to godhood by exalting your standard of morality and justive above or at least equal to God Most High. That brings us back around full circle to the garden of Eden and our original sin.

The heart of all sin, of all human evil is the exaltation of our own will above God, of our own standards above God. It is that act which seperates us from God and it is primarily that attitude and act which the grace of Christ directs us to purge from our soul.
The process of santification, salvation of the soul, is entirely bound up with the submission of our will to God's will.. submitting our will, our thoughts, our beliefs, everything that we are to Him. This is the path that Christ offers us, he will accomplish this work in us, but we must be willing to submit.. willing to give up will. It is only on this path to which Christ is the gate, that we may find communion with God.

[Tetzel]

Fish, It is not our place to judge God.

[Inside Edge]

God doesn't change. Truth doesn't change. Love doesn't change. We can't comprehend these things fully. Things do change, and people do change. God's priorities do not change; but how we understand his priorities can change.That is why Christianity, as a response to the grace of God, can and should 'evolve' over time, in my view

An extremely important point. I would even take it a step futher. If God is outside of time, at the beginning and the end, then everything He is doing (from His perspective) is already done. That means if He changes His M.O. somewhere along the human timeline, as far as "ultimate circimstances" are concerned, nothing has changed at all. A "change" in communication or in the way he wants humans to communicate or relate (or whatever) was planned, enacted, and completed without delay or diversion - right from the beginning and is so in the end.

We're slapping one, big, giant limitation on God by suggesting that things must be done down here the same, for always.

[SeenAndUnseen]

The root of what you have expressed is exactly the same as the original sin that seperated our race from God and brought death upon us.

Since I cannot decide which part of your post to quote for what I am about to say, I'll just leave the above because I think that is the gist of it.
I struggle with this a lot; this idea that our margin (in the Anglican/Episcopal church) of free thinking and our giving of less attention to ecclesial laws and consequences of veering from them is tantamount to man's first sin in the garden. Sometimes it absolutely shakes me. I like to think of myself as a kind person and a good enough person who honestly loves others and wants fairness for all people and forbearance of our many differences. Sometimes this gives me the impression that, by such virtue, I am capable of knowing what is right from what is not right. And I have rushed to the defense of sinners of all kinds, hoping to stand in the way of that first stone that someone might throw, in the name of love and forgiveness and the examination of my own conscience above judgment of others...

Then again, even Christ Himself, after ministering to those who had sinned under the law -- after acting above the law on their behalf -- did refer them back under the rule of the law. Such as when he cured a certain leper, then said for him to go back to his priest and be cleansed (as the law demanded), or the time he saved the adulteress from stoning and told her to go and sin no more, not "go, and if it happens again don't worry -- just do the best you can and be happy no one will stone you as long as I'm around."

I have a great inner conflict with these ideas and I'm not sure what the resolution is. I do know that Robinson's position as a Bishop in our church causes me to grit my teeth fairly often -- it has less to do with him being a self-identified homosexual and more to do with the fact he openly engages in that lifestyle, having abandoned his family to whom he was responsible in the bond of holy matrimony, to indulge in mere physical pleasures...it does not look good that our church winks at such things or allows it. It gives the impression that our holy orders are really only governmental positions: a priest is like a store manager, a bishop, like a regional vice president, an archbishop a franchise owner and ceo....rather than being offices of holy ministry that they ought to be. It worries me greatly when I think about it at times.

Beyond that, the idea of being able to rationally think and decide all moral issues for myself is frightening most of the time, and coupled with the absence of a real moral compass within the church (which has among its ordained men people such as Spong who openly deny the existence of God and yet who are bishops) when it is considered bad to say that anything at all might be "wrong" to do or be....there is a terrifying gap open in the earth for people to fall right into, isn't there? I do understand that the old laws had become an idol unto themselves, but even Christ did not throw away the laws. He obeyed them all the way to the cross.

It is mind-boggling to me, and frustrating to have no clear idea of the safest route in these murky waters.

[karen freeinchristman]

An extremely important point. I would even take it a step futher. If God is outside of time, at the beginning and the end, then everything He is doing (from His perspective) is already done. That means if He changes His M.O. somewhere along the human timeline, as far as "ultimate circimstances" are concerned, nothing has changed at all. A "change" in communication or in the way he wants humans to communicate or relate (or whatever) was planned, enacted, and completed without delay or diversion - right from the beginning and is so in the end.

We're slapping one, big, giant limitation on God by suggesting that things must be done down here the same, for always.

well said!

[Thomas2618]

Yes, I agree. Our understanding can grow (which to me implies change), but the gospel doesn't change; never has and never will. The good news brought to us by Jesus Christ, showing us the way of reconciliation with God, doesn't change. The Church's understanding of it all grows and 'changes' over time.
:)

I'm rather hungry now, so I hope you don't mind if I use a food analogy. The Faith should not change over time nor should our understanding of it 'change' (though as I said our understanding of the Faith can grow...I would think that change implies replacement instead of growth.) For instance, if you have a cake and you add frosting, you still have the same cake. That's not a problem. The problem comes when you start cutting away pieces of the cake to make it have different decorative shape for that leaves out the Whole of the Cake; or if you throw out the cake and make it into cheesecake, saying "well, it's still cake; I mean we call it cheesecake don't we?"...the point is that in both of the latter situations, something or all of the correct cake is missing due to change, where as in the first situation, that cake gained understanding and grew with the frosting.

[higgs2]

An extremely important point. I would even take it a step futher. If God is outside of time, at the beginning and the end, then everything He is doing (from His perspective) is already done. That means if He changes His M.O. somewhere along the human timeline, as far as "ultimate circimstances" are concerned, nothing has changed at all. A "change" in communication or in the way he wants humans to communicate or relate (or whatever) was planned, enacted, and completed without delay or diversion - right from the beginning and is so in the end.

We're slapping one, big, giant limitation on God by suggesting that things must be done down here the same, for always.
:thumbsup: This is a very interesting and well stated idea. Very nicely said.

[john23237]

I have a great inner conflict with these ideas and I'm not sure what the resolution is. I do know that Robinson's position as a Bishop in our church causes me to grit my teeth fairly often -- it has less to do with him being a self-identified homosexual and more to do with the fact he openly engages in that lifestyle, having abandoned his family to whom he was responsible in the bond of holy matrimony, to indulge in mere physical pleasures...

Here we go again. Where was this "great inner conflict" when we just had divorced and re married heterosexual bishops? Where the bruxism when remarks like "abandoned his family" ( dishonest, his ex wife and children are very supportive of him as he is of them and have made it clear that they were not abandoned) are made? Is false witness no longer a sin? Do you honestly regard EVERY divorced person as having "abandoned" their family or just gays? As to the "to indulge in mere physical pleasures" bit, has it ever occurred to you that he honestly loves his partner or do you consider gay Christians as animals unable to truly love, only lust? Never mind, I think I know the answer to that one. In regard to "that lifestyle" do you understand that any number of scholars who have spent their lives studing Holy Scripture have a very different understanding of this subject than one gathers you do?As to holy matrimony, do you understand how hypercritical it is to refuse to grant blessings of the union or marriages to gay couples and then condemn them for the lack there of? This whole, pathetic argument is suggestive of why persons might question a faith system which uses mistranslations and mis understandings of correct ones as weapons against their fellow Christians who happen to be gay.

To the Mod. Please feel free to edit or remove this post as per the rules. I think my spleen has been vented.

[karen freeinchristman]

I'm rather hungry now, so I hope you don't mind if I use a food analogy.
I don't mind at all; I'm always hungry! :yum:

The Faith should not change over time nor should our understanding of it 'change' (though as I said our understanding of the Faith can grow...I would think that change implies replacement instead of growth.)
Well, to me change does not necessarily mean 'replacement'; also, to me, growth of any sort is change. :)

For instance, if you have a cake and you add frosting, you still have the same cake. That's not a problem. The problem comes when you start cutting away pieces of the cake to make it have different decorative shape for that leaves out the Whole of the Cake; or if you throw out the cake and make it into cheesecake, saying "well, it's still cake; I mean we call it cheesecake don't we?"...the point is that in both of the latter situations, something or all of the correct cake is missing due to change, where as in the first situation, that cake gained understanding and grew with the frosting.

Very nice descriptive argument, but it doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.

After all of that cake, I'm feeling rather full now, so if you don't mind, I will
use an analogy from the fascinating world of Entomology.

Consider the caterpillar...
growth... + time... = change! a beautiful butterfly! :angel:

[Thomas2618]

I don't mind at all; I'm always hungry! :yum:


Well, to me change does not necessarily mean 'replacement'; also, to me, growth of any sort is change. :)



Very nice descriptive argument, but it doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.

After all of that cake, I'm feeling rather full now, so if you don't mind, I will
use an analogy from the fascinating world of Entomology.

Consider the caterpillar...
growth... + time... = change! a beautiful butterfly! :angel:

Very nice analogy. However, if I may continue that analogy, I would argue that we'd have a very confused butterfly if everyone was able to choose what they thought or how they feel led that the the new butterfly should look like when it comes out.

[SeenAndUnseen]

Here we go again.

You can go wherever you like, but I'm not packed for your trip so you'll have to go without me.
You seem to have focused entirely on my mention of Bishop Robinson and my "take" on the situation with him. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post, but it would have been nice had you addressed what it had to do with.

[Fish and Bread]

Am I the only one that has a HUGE problem with this idea...I mean if that is true then I can't really trust anything I hear in church, and then I don't know what to believe because I can't trust one thing about Christianity, and then I get really scared because I would begin to feel uncertain about EVERYTHING, and that is really a stressful state of mind. That line of thinking just seems really uneasy and scary.

I think that's interesting, because my feelings are the exact opposite. When I get to thinking that the bible is hook, line, and sinker the word of God or that tradition is inerrant; I get stressed and freaked out. I don't agree with the morality of some of the passages, period. It's never acceptable to kill children, even though God is said to order it in the bible. Torture is never acceptable, even though God is said to order it in the bible. I could go on. The idea of a God who is good but also evil, but demands we agree with him on all fronts is just not a pleasant concept to me, for many reasons, not the least of which is that I refuse to abide those things which I would percieve as evil and would probably be damned for it.

In some denominations, you additionally you have to deal with adhering to nitpicky rules. Oh friz, I don't want to go to confession, off to hell with me. What? My [edit: hypthetical (I'm not actually married)] wife and I want to use birth control so we don't have children we can't support, well that's "intrinsically evil". And don't get me started on the anguish these sort of rules cause homosexuals, many of whom become suicidal or resort to self-mutilation because of the immoral directives against homosexual in the bible and tradition. If God made those rules, he's wrong. Bottom line in my book.

I feel much more comfortable when things are a little more cloudy and I'm not as certain, personally. With progressive Christianity, I can believe that God is good and people like me will be saved. To be, that's good news. For folks with my convictions, the old-style Gospel isn't the "good news" at all. If that's the truth -- that God wants people to kill the heretics and burn infants and will damn everyone who disagrees with anything he says to hell -- I'd rather have been kept in the dark.

[Fish and Bread]

If truth is eternal and unchanging, and Christ is the eternal way, truth, and the life, how can you say that God or Christianity is "changing"?

God does not change.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8

Your thesis relies on believing every word of the bible. If we don't, it's open for discussion. To me, early Christianity took some great steps towards God, but I don't think it was accurate in it's descriptions of God entirely -- neither the bible or tradition. It's a step on the road towards a more perfect morality.

[Fish and Bread]

If you attempt to hold God to a standard there are only two options to choose from.. either you make yourself the standard (which is merely a repetition of the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden) or you believe that there is a standard apart from God which is higher than God.

In the first case, you make youself the standard (which is the recourse of secular humanism and ethical atheists) it is really just an exercise in illogical reasoning. For if there is a God, and we are his creations, for us to dictate to God is the lower attempting to criticize the higher.

Let's do an analogy here: There are a lot of intelligent people in the world who might disagree with those who are less intelligent in any given ethnical argument. Will the smarter person be right 100% of the time? Same analogy, but let's use powerful instead of intelligent. Same analogy, but let's try older instead of intelligent or powerful. That God exists and has all of those aspects doesn't necessarily means he's morally correct on everything. Sometimes, the lower order can be right. But, of course, that's assuming the bible is literally correct on everything -- maybe the bible is wrong about God here and there.

In order for there to be anything other than "might makes right" there must be an over arching all knowing, all just, all authoritative God who decrees from himself what justice is, what right is.

Not really, maybe it's something built into nature or the fabric of the universe instead. Maybe it's something we're evolving towards knowing more fully and don't yet. There are all kinds of possibilities. Yeah, I tend to go with the God scenario, but it doesn't mean it's the only possible scenario.

and if there is such a God, you not only have not right to hold him to account, it is impossible and absurd for you to think that you could do so justly as he himself is the source and standard of all justice.

Do you remember the story of Soddom and Gamora? I think it was Abraham, but if not Abraham one of the other early Jewish patriarchs, who is said to have out argued God on how many good people would need to be present for the cities to be saved. Jacob is said to earn a blessing for struggling with God to a stand till at one point, also. Even the bible hints that maybe, just maybe, humans might have a point when they disagree with the Lord, that there is in fact a sort of divine providence about it. Maybe God means us to challenge his laws here and there, as a way of discovering his true reality.

[Inside Edge]

Very nice analogy. However, if I may continue that analogy, I would argue that we'd have a very confused butterfly if everyone was able to choose what they thought or how they feel led that the the new butterfly should look like when it comes out.

We don't need the butterfly analogy, Thomas...

...how would you describe the cake before it's baked?

What about after it's eaten?

Or maybe, what happens to the cake when it just sits there on the counter forever? ;)

I would say God is just fine with our faith as flour, egg, water, sugar, etc. And He's just as fine with it when it's all mixed and a goupy batter. And He's still fine with it when it's baked into a cake. And He probably doesn't mind if we add icing or sprinkles, or even some ice cream on the side - as long as we still have the cake.

Let me tell you though, when cake sits out it goes stale. It can even get rock-hard. And mouldy.

I'd say Karen and others have a pretty good hold on your analogy: we have to continue to do something with that cake, or it'll just go stale and rot.

[Simon_Templar]

Let's do an analogy here: There are a lot of intelligent people in the world who might disagree with those who are less intelligent in any given ethnical argument. Will the smarter person be right 100% of the time? Same analogy, but let's use powerful instead of intelligent. Same analogy, but let's try older instead of intelligent or powerful. That God exists and has all of those aspects doesn't necessarily means he's morally correct on everything. Sometimes, the lower order can be right. But, of course, that's assuming the bible is literally correct on everything -- maybe the bible is wrong about God here and there..

The analogy you present is a false comparison, probably because I didn't express my point clearly enough. God is not merely higher.. he is the source. All that we know of justice, or of love comes from him. Thus to make something truly analogous you would have to have one person who knew all about a topic, and a student of that person.. the student then turning around and telling the teacher what is right and what is wrong, when all that the student knows has been taught to him by the teacher. In this analogy if the student disagrees with the teacher there are only two reasons why.. one the student has found a source of knowledge outside the teacher (going back to the seprent and eve in the garden of eden and also we'll come back to this in your next point) OR the student, through lacking full knowledge and understanding has gone into error.



Not really, maybe it's something built into nature or the fabric of the universe instead. Maybe it's something we're evolving towards knowing more fully and don't yet. There are all kinds of possibilities. Yeah, I tend to go with the God scenario, but it doesn't mean it's the only possible scenario.

Here again your simply resorting to the secondary argument I pointed out in my post. Namely that there is something higher than God. What you call that thing, wether it be the fabric of the universe, or another deity, is somewhat irrelevant. All you are doing is suggesting that there is a higher truth that God. In effect forming a new concept of God.. in the case of the "universe" you are just making God impersonal.

In this recourse you are also tending towards exaltation of self because if you, mortal that you are, know this universal truth which contradicts God and is higher than God, it must be reasoned that you have apprehended it mysticly somehow.. whatever this new God, fabric of the universe or whatever, it must some how have revealed this knowledge in you.. setting you up against the God of the bible. It essentially turns God into the supreme subjectivity justifying whatever you feel and or think.

Of course the presense of this knowledge within you suggests one of two possabilities, either it is innate, in which case the God of the bible is probably not the creator as it would be hard to believe that he would create us with innate knowledge that contradicts his very nature and would ensure our rebellion against him.
Or, you were created by the God of the bible and in his act of creation he removed you and saught to keep you seperate from the knowledge of the universal that you claim to have seen.

In all cases, the view that you have put forth leads inexorably away from christianity and to gnosticism, eventually probably 'luciferian' gnosticism (which makes up a large percentage of the 'new age' movement).


Do you remember the story of Soddom and Gamora? I think it was Abraham, but if not Abraham one of the other early Jewish patriarchs, who is said to have out argued God on how many good people would need to be present for the cities to be saved. Jacob is said to earn a blessing for struggling with God to a stand till at one point, also. Even the bible hints that maybe, just maybe, humans might have a point when they disagree with the Lord, that there is in fact a sort of divine providence about it. Maybe God means us to challenge his laws here and there, as a way of discovering his true reality.


It was Abraham, and Jacob did earn a blessing by struggling with God.. you might also bring up the example of Job and how he questioned and argued with his friends over the fate that God allowed to come upon him.

I don't think that God has a problem with questioning, seeking answers and understanding. There is, however, a significant difference between asking God "for the sake of how many, will you withhold judgement?"... "why do those who have not done wrong suffer?" if you genuinely seek understanding, and saying that God is unjust, or that he does not have the right to judge. Those things are vastly different in attitude. One is a servant seeking understanding and the other is rebellion.

[john23237]

Does God change His mind (and thus the "rules") from time to time? Fair enough question. Let me begin by saying I most certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts on the matter. When Our Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and gave him (and thus the church via A.S.) the power to "bind and loosen "(change the rules or at least our understanding and application of them), He knew full well that He was intrusting the Kingdom of God on earth to weak, flawed mortals. The Holy Spirit was thus given to His church to guide it. The Christ could have simply written a text outlining what was and was not to be done, when and where, in great detail, and thus each and every question we have would have been fully answered and we would not be here asking them. He chose to do nothing of the kind. Why? Perhaps, just perhaps, because He intented to create a living, organic church with His authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to apply the "rules", if you will, to an ever changing society. The "rules" of God do not change, but our understanding of them and their proper application do. Our Lord never said the Law was wrong, but do we see examples in the Gospels when Our Lord explains that their (the people of His time) understanding of the Law was wrong as thus was the manner they were being applied. The authority Christ gave His church is a bit "unsettling" if you will, but it certainly appears to have been part of His plan for us.

[karen freeinchristman]

Does God change His mind (and thus the "rules") from time to time? Fair enough question. Let me begin by saying I most certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts on the matter. When Our Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and gave him (and thus the church via A.S.) the power to "bind and loosen "(change the rules or at least our understanding and application of them), He knew full well that He was intrusting the Kingdom of God on earth to weak, flawed mortals. The Holy Spirit was thus given to His church to guide it. The Christ could have simply written a text outlining what was and was not to be done, when and where, in great detail, and thus each and every question we have would have been fully answered and we would not be here asking them. He chose to do nothing of the kind. Why? Perhaps, just perhaps, because He intented to create a living, organic church with His authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to apply the "rules", if you will, to an ever changing society. The "rules" of God do not change, but our understanding of them and their proper application do. Our Lord never said the Law was wrong, but do we see examples in the Gospels when Our Lord explains that their (the people of His time) understanding of the Law was wrong as thus was the manner they were being applied. The authority Christ gave His church is a bit "unsettling" if you will, but it certainly appears to have been part of His plan for us.

Good post, John! :) (can't rep you again, yet).

[higgs2]

Does God change His mind (and thus the "rules") from time to time? Fair enough question. Let me begin by saying I most certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts on the matter. When Our Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and gave him (and thus the church via A.S.) the power to "bind and loosen "(change the rules or at least our understanding and application of them), He knew full well that He was intrusting the Kingdom of God on earth to weak, flawed mortals. The Holy Spirit was thus given to His church to guide it. The Christ could have simply written a text outlining what was and was not to be done, when and where, in great detail, and thus each and every question we have would have been fully answered and we would not be here asking them. He chose to do nothing of the kind. Why? Perhaps, just perhaps, because He intented to create a living, organic church with His authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to apply the "rules", if you will, to an ever changing society. The "rules" of God do not change, but our understanding of them and their proper application do. Our Lord never said the Law was wrong, but do we see examples in the Gospels when Our Lord explains that their (the people of His time) understanding of the Law was wrong as thus was the manner they were being applied. The authority Christ gave His church is a bit "unsettling" if you will, but it certainly appears to have been part of His plan for us.

I can't rep you again either! But -- good post! :thumbsup: :clap:

[Thomas2618]

Does God change His mind (and thus the "rules") from time to time? Fair enough question. Let me begin by saying I most certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts on the matter. When Our Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and gave him (and thus the church via A.S.) the power to "bind and loosen "(change the rules or at least our understanding and application of them), He knew full well that He was intrusting the Kingdom of God on earth to weak, flawed mortals. The Holy Spirit was thus given to His church to guide it. The Christ could have simply written a text outlining what was and was not to be done, when and where, in great detail, and thus each and every question we have would have been fully answered and we would not be here asking them. He chose to do nothing of the kind. Why? Perhaps, just perhaps, because He intented to create a living, organic church with His authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to apply the "rules", if you will, to an ever changing society. The "rules" of God do not change, but our understanding of them and their proper application do. Our Lord never said the Law was wrong, but do we see examples in the Gospels when Our Lord explains that their (the people of His time) understanding of the Law was wrong as thus was the manner they were being applied. The authority Christ gave His church is a bit "unsettling" if you will, but it certainly appears to have been part of His plan for us.

Great post. Well said... It's certainly important there, that that authority was given to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through Apostolic Succesion, and not to the individual.

[Fish and Bread]

The analogy you present is a false comparison, probably because I didn't express my point clearly enough. God is not merely higher.. he is the source. All that we know of justice, or of love comes from him.

This is according to one theory. You're basing your logic on the acceptance of certain principles that are not proved -- in essence, on faith. Faith is a great thing, but it's a hard thing to prove logically. :)

However, even accepting those premises, we could certainly say we've been wrong about God in the past, that there are errors in the bible, in tradition, etc.; and that we are being led into the fullness of truth. There are a lot of different ways to look at things.

Thus to make something truly analogous you would have to have one person who knew all about a topic, and a student of that person.. the student then turning around and telling the teacher what is right and what is wrong, when all that the student knows has been taught to him by the teacher. In this analogy if the student disagrees with the teacher there are only two reasons why.. one the student has found a source of knowledge outside the teacher (going back to the seprent and eve in the garden of eden and also we'll come back to this in your next point) OR the student, through lacking full knowledge and understanding has gone into error.

Well, I think with a lot of matter of morality, we're talking about opinion questions. Knowing everything doesn't mean one is right everything, particularly when subjective matters are discussed. It's not a question of true and false so much of a question of what's the best way to live -- and the answer depends to a certain extent on the people involved. That's not to say that there aren't universal truths, it's just to say that not *everything* must be a universal truth that is objective. There are elements of both objective and subjective truths which together comprise our common realities.


In this recourse you are also tending towards exaltation of self because if you, mortal that you are, know this universal truth which contradicts God and is higher than God, it must be reasoned that you have apprehended it mysticly somehow.. whatever this new God, fabric of the universe or whatever, it must some how have revealed this knowledge in you.. setting you up against the God of the bible. It essentially turns God into the supreme subjectivity justifying whatever you feel and or think.

I don't recall if you're a member of ECUSA or not, but if you are, you might recall at church today that the epistle lesson talked about circumcision and how it was not required among Christians -- "remain in the state you were called" or something along those lines was the gist of St. Paul's argument. Now, obviously, St. Paul had a bit of a different outlook than I do, but I think the line of reasoning is interesting in this sense: Circumcision was thought by the Jews to be absolutely necessary, in essence the moral law, an eternal covenant. Now the Christian came along and said, "No, it's irrelevant". This is justified by the new covenant and this, that, and the other, but, let's face it, bottom line is that it's a new understanding of the way things are. A new understanding of God, nature, morality, etc. Brought to us by Jesus and his Apostles, yes, but in fundamental contradiction to what went before. I think that sort of discovery and revelation is a continuing process. We're wrong about some things and go back and revise them.

Of course the presense of this knowledge within you suggests one of two possabilities, either it is innate, in which case the God of the bible is probably not the creator as it would be hard to believe that he would create us with innate knowledge that contradicts his very nature and would ensure our rebellion against him.
Or, you were created by the God of the bible and in his act of creation he removed you and saught to keep you seperate from the knowledge of the universal that you claim to have seen.

I think there's a middle ground there. The bible is people's guesses about God. Some hit the mark, some don't. It's not really an all or nothing proposition, necessarily.

In all cases, the view that you have put forth leads inexorably away from christianity and to gnosticism, eventually probably 'luciferian' gnosticism (which makes up a large percentage of the 'new age' movement).

Okay, I know what gnosticism is and I know what satanism is. What's luciferian (Satanist) gnosticism? :)

I don't think that God has a problem with questioning, seeking answers and understanding. There is, however, a significant difference between asking God "for the sake of how many, will you withhold judgement?"... "why do those who have not done wrong suffer?" if you genuinely seek understanding, and saying that God is unjust, or that he does not have the right to judge. Those things are vastly different in attitude. One is a servant seeking understanding and the other is rebellion.

I like the God who in Christ called us friends rather than servants. :)

[gtsecc]

Fish and Bread, Justice can only exist if God exists - any God.
Even an Atheist will tell you that.
That justice derives it essence from God is NOT a Christian idea.
If there is no God, then we are our own God and might makes right.

[karen freeinchristman]

Fish and Bread, Justice can only exist if God exists - any God.
Even an Atheist will tell you that.
That justice derives it essence from God is NOT a Christian idea.
I don't get this, gtsecc. It sounds like you are contradicting yourself with your first sentence and your last sentence.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Fish and Bread, I deeply admire you. Nonetheless, I find this post very disturbing. There is a point when Christianity ceases to be Christianity, and a point when God ceases to be God.
As much as I admire the truths other religions appear to hold, I do not see them as close to valid. Despite things I've said in the past, I've come to see this.
Anglican Christianity is no longer Anglican Christianity when it is High Church Unitarianism.

[karen freeinchristman]

Yeah, I feel uncomfortable with universal salvation. Most of the time. :)

[Fish and Bread]

Fish and Bread, I deeply admire you. Nonetheless, I find this post very disturbing. There is a point when Christianity ceases to be Christianity, and a point when God ceases to be God.
As much as I admire the truths other religions appear to hold, I do not see them as close to valid. Despite things I've said in the past, I've come to see this.
Anglican Christianity is no longer Anglican Christianity when it is High Church Unitarianism.

It's interesting. My thinking seems to have evolved leftward as your's has evolved rightward. I'm not so much interested in labeling as I am in finding a faith that adds to my life and doesn't take away. With traditional Christianity, increasingly, what I see is a cross, and one that may not even yield a resurrection. My life is rough enough to begin with. If God loves me, he'll save me. If he doesn't, he may not. Sometimes, I think that's where I have to leave things.

My hope is in a God who loves and not a God who punishes. Ultimately, if God is as the bible says he is in all respects, then, I'll be honest, I think it points straight to the door of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact of the matter is, though, that I don't believe what they teach is right. I'm not saying that as a criticism of that particular church, but just as a way of explaining my thought process in deciding to be a post-modern Christian. I can't believe that people can be doomed to hell for not doing good works. Yes, upon forth examination, I do believe that the bible says it, but I don't believe it's true. Or, at least, if it's the way of things, than that's not a God I can really truly follow. I don't believe it was okay for the Israelites to stone to death people for gathering wheat on the Sabbath. I don't believe that homosexuality is evil. I don't believe that hell is morally justifiable. And that's where I stand.

When I realized that conceptually where I was at, a sort of moderate to liberal high-church Protestantism, didn't hold up intellectually, it left with two ways to remain within Christiandom in a formal way and be intellectually honest with myself. One way was to become a sort of post-modern Christian, the other was to become a Roman Catholic (Or something close to it). Alternately, I could have become a Unitarian Universalist or stopped attending church already.

I feel a strong connection with some of the traditions and the teachings of Christianity. I see God in the Christ figure. I like a good liturgy, priests, bishops, traditional church hymns, etc. And, ultimately, I like the way the Episcopal Church is going. So, I wanted to remain in a Christian church.

I couldn't be Roman Catholic, though, because you can see the sort of strong heartfelt objections I had to that type of God. It'd be a huge cross for me. There's a huge sense of dread. Maybe, just maybe, I could live like that, but I'd never ever be happy. I'd be flat out miserable. I don't believe that's what a loving God would want.

So, yeah, to some, I've gone beyond the bounds of Christianity, and I understand why they might say that. I've moved to a point where I'm no longer confessionally Christian as it's been historically understood. And, yet, I uniquely identify God with the Christ figure and my spirituality is bound up uniquely in the Christian tradition. The basic sense of the term Christian is "One of or relating to Christ". In that sense, I'm very Christian. But if growing in my spirituality means I can't quite use that term as I used to, well, God is about more than terminology. I'm still not quite Bishop Spong liberal, so if he can be an Episcopalian bishop, I'm sure I can continue to be an Episcopalian pew sitter. :)

[Fish and Bread]

Yeah, I feel uncomfortable with universal salvation. Most of the time. :)

Maybe the reason we sometimes feel uncomfortable with the concept of universal salvation is that it's not the way of the world. In this world, people are allowed to suffer, starve, etc.; based on a perceived lack of merit, or because of wrongdoing. Maybe God is beyond that, understands our faults, and loves us for who we are, unconditionally. If we can sometimes be forgiving and sometimes be accepting and sometimes be loving, as weak and as flawed as we are, could not God, who is theoretically perfect, forgive, accept, and love beyond that? A God who demands a pound of flesh, and even eternal torture sometimes, for transgressions is no better than a man.

[karen freeinchristman]

I'm not sure what to ask at this point...

I can't see that you would be one to believe that your faith shouldn't have to move out of its comfort zone at times, could you?




I must say, though, that I do like this quote:

God is about more than terminology.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Maybe the reason we sometimes feel uncomfortable with the concept of universal salvation is that it's not the way of the world. In this world, people are allowed to suffer, starve, etc.; based on a perceived lack of merit, or because of wrongdoing. Maybe God is beyond that, understands our faults, and loves us for who we are, unconditionally. If we can sometimes be forgiving and sometimes be accepting and sometimes be loving, as weak and as flawed as we are, could not God, who is theoretically perfect, forgive, accept, and love beyond that? A God who demands a pound of flesh, and even eternal torture sometimes, for transgressions is no better than a man.

It's not Universal Salvation I have a problem with, but rather the view that other religions are equally valid in the sight of God. Where that so, Calvary would have been in vain.

[TomUK]

It's not Universal Salvation I have a problem with, but rather the view that other religions are equally valid in the sight of God. Where that so, Calvary would have been in vain.

Exactly

*tom points down to the poem in his sig*

[Colabomb]

What about love, compassion, acceptance, tolerance, and respect for the human dignity of all persons make right? :)
Those things are only good, because God, the definition of Good says they are.

For fallible sinful man to come up with a morality of his own is ridiculous.

[Colabomb]

Maybe the reason we sometimes feel uncomfortable with the concept of universal salvation is that it's not the way of the world. In this world, people are allowed to suffer, starve, etc.; based on a perceived lack of merit, or because of wrongdoing. Maybe God is beyond that, understands our faults, and loves us for who we are, unconditionally. If we can sometimes be forgiving and sometimes be accepting and sometimes be loving, as weak and as flawed as we are, could not God, who is theoretically perfect, forgive, accept, and love beyond that? A God who demands a pound of flesh, and even eternal torture sometimes, for transgressions is no better than a man.
Or we read the words of the God who says "I will separate the sheep from the goats."

I believe wholeheartedly in the God of Love and Mercy, without Him I am lost. But to ignore the God of Justice, the same all powerful God who extends Mercy, is foolish.


Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.


What I want is a sustained vibrant relationship with the God whom I revere as Truth Himself, whether or not I like the Truth.

[TomUK]

I believe wholeheartedly in the God of Love and Mercy, without Him I am lost. But to ignore the God of Justice, the same all powerful God who extends Mercy, is foolish. I believe wholeheartedly in the God of Love and Mercy, without Him I am lost. But to ignore the God of Justice, the same all powerful God who extends Mercy, is foolish.



:amen: :amen: :amen:

[Fish and Bread]

I'm not sure what to ask at this point...

I can't see that you would be one to believe that your faith shouldn't have to move out of its comfort zone at times, could you?

I think it depends what one means when one talks about going outside of our comfort zone. Yes, I think God calls us to go outside of our comfortzone and love the unloveable, to forgive the unforgiveable, and to live in a community of radical tolerance, inclusion, and acceptance. If going outside our comfort zone means believing it's okay that people are going to be burnt to death over and over again in a firey inferno and not allowed to die, just because they have philosophical disagreements with the almighty or fondly remember their pre-martial fling with their first love; I think that's going too far, though. I think there ought to be a limit to what we can accept as moral. And hell crosses that line for me.

[Fish and Bread]

It's not Universal Salvation I have a problem with, but rather the view that other religions are equally valid in the sight of God. Where that so, Calvary would have been in vain.

Not really. Jesus would still be our way, our truth, and our light and be for us the image of the living God. The mythos of death and new life as demonstrated on the stage of the Roman province of Israel so many years ago would still be important to our faith and understanding. That people might come to relationship with God in different ways makes our way no less real or valid. It simply shows us that the love of God is all-encompassing and can reach beyond our cultural worldview and manifest itself in many different forms.

[Fish and Bread]

Or we read the words of the God who says "I will separate the sheep from the goats."

I don't believe there are any goats. We're all made in the image and likeness of God and will be drawn into his perfect love.

I believe wholeheartedly in the God of Love and Mercy, without Him I am lost. But to ignore the God of Justice, the same all powerful God who extends Mercy, is foolish.


Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.


What I want is a sustained vibrant relationship with the God whom I revere as Truth Himself, whether or not I like the Truth.

Honestly, I hear that a lot from conservative religious. If we truly value truth above love, than to me that could be taken as a form of idoltry. Truth is just clinical facts. Love is transcendant. Something being true doesn't always made it good or transcendant, but love is always good and transcendant. I believe God is love, which is why I don't believe in all of the bible.

[Wiffey]

Love is absolutely the highest value. And I expect that God can experience and project love in a way that human beings cannot even begin to imagine.

Personally, I feel that the idea of of eternal vengeance and Hell stems from the human tendency to project human feelings and motivations onto God. We anthropomorphize God and attribute our own shortcomings onto the Divine. Hence you see God behaving in odd ways: jealous, vengeful, angry...in short, acting like us.

While I believe that Scripture contains truth and is valuable, (and I think the writers were inspired by God) I recognize that the writers were human and may have let their own viewpoints color their writings. Luckily I don't need to believe that the Bible is perfect or totally inerrant in order to believe in the Divinity of Christ.

The Jesus I worship embodies mercy and forgiveness and love in a way that transcends human pettiness and vengeance.

[Fish and Bread]

Love is absolutely the highest value. And I expect that God can experience and project love in a way that human beings cannot even begin to imagine.

Personally, I feel that the idea of of eternal vengeance and Hell stems from the human tendency to project human feelings and motivations onto God. We anthropomorphize God and attribute our own shortcomings onto the Divine. Hence you see God behaving in odd ways: jealous, vengeful, angry...in short, acting like us.

While I believe that Scripture contains truth and is valuable, (and I think the writers were inspired by God) I recognize that the writers were human and may have let their own viewpoints color their writings. Luckily I don't need to believe that the Bible is perfect or totally inerrant in order to believe in the Divinity of Christ.

The Jesus I worship embodies mercy and forgiveness and love in a way that transcends human pettiness and vengeance.

Excellent post. :) I'm curious, how do you reconcile all of the references Jesus makes in the Gospel for hell and wrath with those not being attributes of God and Jesus being God? I'm beginning to see trinitarianism as more of a metaphor than literal percisely because I have trouble reonciling the notions with each other. Certainly, because could be putting words into Jesus' mouth, but that many, that soon? It doesn't seem entirely plausible to me.

[Wiffey]

I'm not totally sure...mercifully, I think I have to love God more than I have to be totally correct. I count a lot on grace, LOL!

I think that the incarnation (which is, of course, a mystery too profound for adequate explanation) puts a human face on God...but interestingly gives us a being (Christ) who is both fully human and fully Divine, with all of the emotions and seeming contradictions that it entails.

I'm not a theologian, so I cannot speculate more.

All I know is that I believe God to be more forgiving and loving and merciful than any mere human mortal...and that leaves me with some deep questions about the concept of eternal wrath. Why would our good and loving Lord condemn poor, limited and confused humans for their inability to get things right? He knows (as the author of our being) our weakness and stupidity. Do we need correction? Yes. Do we deserve eternal torment for temporal foolishness? If I as a human say no, I can only assume that God (who is far more forgiving than I) has the capacity to forgive as well. (But there goes another human anthropomorphizing God!).

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Not really. Jesus would still be our way, our truth, and our light and be for us the image of the living God. The mythos of death and new life as demonstrated on the stage of the Roman province of Israel so many years ago would still be important to our faith and understanding. That people might come to relationship with God in different ways makes our way no less real or valid. It simply shows us that the love of God is all-encompassing and can reach beyond our cultural worldview and manifest itself in many different forms.
Jesus is THE way, THE truth, and THE life. Not merely "ours", those of other religions who will be saved are saved despite their errors, not because of them.

[CSMR]

The God I believe in is a God of love and mercy, as opposed to an angry God of retribution and recrimination. And I do not envision my God sending people to Hell for eternity for some temporary sins...again, that (IMO) is even harsher than any punishments humans could devise and God is supposed to be better than us. I tend to believe in Grace more than Justice...

But I don't totally discount the possibility of some form of correction/consequences for truly evil people (like Hitler,etc)...
If there is mercy, there has to be judgement, otherwise mercy is not mercy. The love of God calls us to repentance, that is to God's justice, to know that we do not respond to God; whereas the justice of God points to the mercy of God in showing our need.
I do totally reject the idea that all non-Christians will suffer forever because they were ignorant about Jesus.
They probably suffer very little on account of it if they are indeed non-Christians. But it is the worst position of all to reject both justice and mercy and to live apart from God. It seems that you yourself have done this when you put yourself above "truly evil people like Hitler".

Eternal suffering is a wrong notion; if that is what you are arguing against specifically then I agree.
I think you are indeed a Christian.
Perhaps you are treating this word lightly because you don't know what it means and how it is necessary for salvation? What gives you the boldness to call another person a Christian?

[CSMR]

My faith is a belief in something tangible, just as I have faith in the chair I'm sitting in.
But according to Hebrews "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

[CSMR]

Situations have to change in order for God's Kingdom to come fully. Things cannot possibly stay the way they are. People, in response to God's love, and in the desire to do his will, help God to bring justice to the earth; to the oppressed, the unloved, and to the undefended.
People don't help God. God may in his mercy work this mercy through our actions but that does not mean that God depends on us because God can work through any of our actions; otherwise mercy would be a matter of works.

[CSMR]

I like to think of myself as a kind person and a good enough person who honestly loves others and wants fairness for all people and forbearance of our many differences. Sometimes this gives me the impression that, by such virtue, I am capable of knowing what is right from what is not right.
It is good that you have been led to identify this tendency (which ultimately we all have). May we be led to repentance!

[CSMR]

God's priorities do not change; but how we understand his priorities can change.

That is why Christianity, as a response to the grace of God, can and should 'evolve' over time, in my view.
Misunderstandings change throughout time. But Christianity does not change; nor should it, because there is only one gospel for the world, which does not change.

[CSMR]

Personally, I feel that the idea of of eternal vengeance and Hell stems from the human tendency to project human feelings and motivations onto God. We anthropomorphize God and attribute our own shortcomings onto the Divine. Hence you see God behaving in odd ways: jealous, vengeful, angry...in short, acting like us.
Excellent post. :)
Fish and Bread, I replied to your post on your blog just now, so I won't do it again. I basically considered that you had an anthopomorphized view of the Christian God that you rejected, but without rejecting the basic idea of an anthopormorphic God, and that you should realize that the proper interpreation of the Christian God is not anthopormorphic. You are interpreting theology basically as if it were descriptions of an emprical person who is called God. That is not a proper way to go about thinking about the statements God is almighty, God is good, God is merciful, God judges, etc..

[karen freeinchristman]

Misunderstandings change throughout time. But Christianity does not change; nor should it, because there is only one gospel for the world, which does not change.
I would never propose that the gospel itself ever changes.

I would argue that the religion (i.e. Christianity) manifested by believers who are attempting to live out their faith by studying and interpreting Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, and experiencing God in their own distinctive culture and context, can change over time, and that things revealed to us through the sciences can and should be incorporated into our world view. Questioning the conclusions arrived at by the early Church is entirely appropriate, in my opinion. This is what I mean when I say that Christianity can change. I am not advocating throwing away the teachings of the early church and replacing them with all new teachings. All I am saying is that the way people view God (and the way they view the gospel, even though it doesn't change), changes as civilisation changes. I don't understand how some people can pretend that nothing has changed since the days of the early church. I feel that God has accomplished lots of wonderful changes, enlightening his people all the time. I don't think it is arrogant to say that some people today have a deeper insight into human nature and the nature of spiritual things than they used to.

You state that misunderstandings change throughout time. This is the same thing as I said earlier, that understandings change over time.


*runs away to avoid the backlash of this post*

[artrx]

I would never propose that the gospel itself ever changes.

I would argue that the religion (i.e. Christianity) manifested by believers who are attempting to live out their faith by studying and interpreting Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, and experiencing God in their own distinctive culture and context, can change over time, and that things revealed to us through the sciences can and should be incorporated into our world view. Questioning the conclusions arrived at by the early Church is entirely appropriate, in my opinion. This is what I mean when I say that Christianity can change. I am not advocating throwing away the teachings of the early church and replacing them with all new teachings. All I am saying is that the way people view God (and the way they view the gospel, even though it doesn't change), changes as civilisation changes. I don't understand how some people can pretend that nothing has changed since the days of the early church. I feel that God has accomplished lots of wonderful changes, enlightening his people all the time. I don't think it is arrogant to say that some people today have a deeper insight into human nature and the nature of spiritual things than they used to.

You state that misunderstandings change throughout time. This is the same thing as I said earlier, that understandings change over time.


*runs away to avoid the backlash of this post*


Excellent post, Karen (I'll say that before any backlash begins ;) )

[SirTimothy]

Edited as I don't want to get into that argument here.

Timothy

[Colabomb]

Misunderstandings change throughout time. But Christianity does not change; nor should it, because there is only one gospel for the world, which does not change.
AMEN AND AMEN!

I don't want a God who changes with my personal opinion.

[Inside Edge]

You state that misunderstandings change throughout time. This is the same thing as I said earlier, that understandings change over time.
Right on the money!

[Thomas2618]

AMEN AND AMEN!

I don't want a God who changes with my personal opinion.

Me either.

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't want a God who changes with my personal opinion.
I never said that. I certainly wouldn't trust my individual personal opinion, except as far as I feel intuition and guidance in everyday matters... not in things as huge as our Christian doctrine.

The Church can though, over time, form different understandings of what constitutes Christianity - as a religion- according to increased understandings of human nature and the sciences and what is happening in the world. I do not think for one minute that God is the one who is changing, or that the gospel is changing. Jesus' example of what God is like doesn't change. For us to have the goal of becoming more Christ-like doesn't change. :)

[Wiffey]

I agree with you, Karen. As human beings progress, our understanding (not God's) changes. Our outlook in the 21st Century is very different than our outlook and amassed experience was in the 10th Century...and we have a different perspective and understanding of things. Are we as humans perfect in our understanding...never! We do the best we can to serve God and pray for guidance.

[CSMR]

Now you are back, I can give you the backlash!
You state that misunderstandings change throughout time. This is the same thing as I said earlier, that understandings change over time.
So we are agreed then? Understandings change through time, which is the same as saying misunderstandings change through time, namely because understandings, which change through time, are misunderstandings.
I would never propose that the gospel itself ever changes.
Excellent
I would argue that the religion (i.e. Christianity) manifested by believers who are attempting to live out their faith by studying and interpreting Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, and experiencing God in their own distinctive culture and context, can change over time
Well, does the Holy Spirit, which gives us a genuine faith and an understanding of Holy Scripture, lead us into understandings which are misunderstandings? No! And in that case let us not call these (mis)understandings Christianity. The Holy Sprit, Holy Scripture, faith, these all lead us into an understanding of the unchangeable gospel, an understanding which is beyond human understanding.
All I am saying is that the way people view God (and the way they view the gospel, even though it doesn't change), changes as civilisation changes.

I don't understand how some people can pretend that nothing has changed since the days of the early church. I feel that God has accomplished lots of wonderful changes, enlightening his people all the time. I don't think it is arrogant to say that some people today have a deeper insight into human nature and the nature of spiritual things than they used to.
*runs away to avoid the backlash of this post*
What is it to be enlightened, but to have the light of God in us by grace? Perhaps they, in spite of themselves had this light; perhaps we, in spite of ourselves, also have it. Can we then we claim to be more enlightened than they for preferring our ideas? Shouldn't we recognise that "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" who is able to forgive both our thoughts and theirs?
I am not speaking for or against change, but saying that the world of change should be put in its proper place.

[karen freeinchristman]

Thank you, CSMR, for your gently worded reply! :)


So we are agreed then? Understandings change through time, which is the same as saying misunderstandings change through time, namely because understandings, which change through time, are misunderstandings.
No. I disagree entirely, the bold portion of the quote above. I'm fine with it if you feel convinced of this, but if what you are saying is that there is no possible way we can understand God, Christianity or the gospel any differently today than we did in the first 500 years or so of the Church, then I disagree entirely. :sorry:

Well, does the Holy Spirit, which gives us a genuine faith and an understanding of Holy Scripture, lead us into understandings which are misunderstandings? No! And in that case let us not call these (mis)understandings Christianity. I think we have a differing view of what the term 'Christianity' actually means. By using that term, I am not referring to the gospel, or to tradition, but to a living, growing, Spirit-guided, relationship-based, life-giving, life-saving, purpose-making orientation which people enter iinto both on a personal level and on an institutional level as the Church. What is your own definition of 'Christianity' (from your own heart and mind)? :confused:

The Holy Sprit, Holy Scripture, faith, these all lead us into an understanding of the unchangeable gospel, an understanding which is beyond human understanding.Quite happy to agree with you here! :clap:

What is it to be enlightened, but to have the light of God in us by grace? Perhaps they, in spite of themselves had this light; perhaps we, in spite of ourselves, also have it. Can we then we claim to be more enlightened than they for preferring our ideas? Shouldn't we recognise that "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" who is able to forgive both our thoughts and theirs?
I am not speaking for or against change, but saying that the world of change should be put in its proper place.Yes, I do not think that the wisdom of the early church should be ignored. I think we should learn everything we can from them. God's promises are for us all, including the spiritual gifts. Why limit God's power to those people and that time period?

[Colabomb]

But where does this go?

"Jesus didn't REALLY mean that there is a Hell, we just misunderstood him"

"Paul was just using a metaphor when he said the wages of sin is death"

"Jesus didn't Really intend for us to think of Him as God, we just misunderstood him."

If we can chalk up everything we dislike up to a "misunderstanding" then by default, God changes to fit our conclusions, at least in our mind He does.

[SirTimothy]

It comes down to this. Do we trust the bible or not? If we don't, then we cannot trust Jesus' death and resurrection, and there is no possibility that we may be raised. C.S. Lewis said words to the effect of EITHER Jesus is the Son of God, the only way, truth and the life, or else he was a demonic power of influence. He cannot be just another good teacher with another way to heaven because all of his teachings CENTRED around the fact that he was the way to Heaven, That God made us to be in a relationship with Him, and that He was the only way to restore it. If we believe in the resurrection and that Jesus was truly the Son of God, and God incarnate, then we MUST believe His teachings. If we discard his teachings on this subject, we can discard the resurrection, we can discard the Eucharist being Christ's Body and Blood... Christianity is an all-or-nothing belief system.

Over the past few weeks, while a local church is beginning the 'Purpose Driven Life' (a definitely pick-and-choose-your-beliefs course) I've been grappling with the idea of pick-and-choose Christianity, and decided that it really isn't christianity at all. I ADAMANTLY believe that God came down to earth because he loved us and wanted to be in a relationship with us, and know that because I want to be in a relationship with Him, I have to accept His teachings, EVEN when I don't like them, and wish they weren't that way.

Timothy

[Inside Edge]

If we can chalk up everything we dislike up to a "misunderstanding" then by default, God changes to fit our conclusions, at least in our mind He does.
How so? Based on your example, all I see changing is people's perception or opinion of God, from one time period to another. Nothing in what you've pointed out amounts to a change in God (especially not by "default").

[Wiffey]

I certainly agree with you WRT the Divinity of Christ and needing to listen to Him. I think the gray area is how we each discern what He is saying. Balancing scripture, tradition and reason is a good thing. Depending too much on any one leg of the stool can throw one off balance (I personally tend to try to reason things out on my own too much...I trust in God's great mercy to forgive me my foibles.)

(Gets ready to wade into shark-infested waters wearing a swimsuit of headless herring...) I love scripture and find the Bible to be poetic and beautiful, and I think it contains the best link to the words and actions of Christ, but...I also know that it was written by human men (no matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit) and translated by human men, edited and selected (with the canon of scripture decided by council) by men. So while I think it is a great resource, I also don't view it as inerrant.

Tradition, too, has been influenced by cultural and historical trends...and I don't view it as inerrant.

Reason...well that certainly isn't inerrant! We all have a different perspective and experience that colors our perception of events.

So please don't think I present my opinion as some sort of FACT. I am totally aware that, as a limited and finite being I cannot begin to fully fathom the Holy Mystery. I think we all just do the best we can while on the planet...truth will be fully apparent to us when we are finally in the presence of our Lord.

Please forgive me...before I was a nurse, I was a historian (and I'm the wife of a historian/college instructor) and I am very guilty of looking at the Bible and Christian History through the lens of someone who spent countless hours in classes studying biblical sources and hearing endless theories on the social and political realities that impacted the compilation and editing of scripture. It is hard for me to turn of that part of my brain and act like the Bible dropped out of the sky whole and complete without any arguments about which books it would contain or any revisions. Mind you, I'm not saying that my perspective is right, just that it is how I view it. Like everyone else, I am a product of my time, culture, experience and education...my understanding (like any human's) is highly subjective!

Ironically, for all my questions and examining my faith, I have always believed absolutely in Christ's divinity. I may have questioned everything else, but my belief in God remains rock solid. Now, what I believe about particular doctrines, church structures, etc...that has changed and evolved over time. So Christ alone is my fortress. :)

[karen freeinchristman]

I certainly agree with you WRT the Divinity of Christ and needing to listen to Him. I think the gray area is how we each discern what He is saying. Balancing scripture, tradition and reason is a good thing. Depending too much on any one leg of the stool can throw one off balance (I personally tend to try to reason things out on my own too much...I trust in God's great mercy to forgive me my foibles.)

(Gets ready to wade into shark-infested waters wearing a swimsuit of headless herring...) I love scripture and find the Bible to be poetic and beautiful, and I think it contains the best link to the words and actions of Christ, but...I also know that it was written by human men (no matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit) and translated by human men, edited and selected (with the canon of scripture decided by council) by men. So while I think it is a great resource, I also don't view it as inerrant.

Tradition, too, has been influenced by cultural and historical trends...and I don't view it as inerrant.

Reason...well that certainly isn't inerrant! We all have a different perspective and experience that colors our perception of events.

So please don't think I present my opinion as some sort of FACT. I am totally aware that, as a limited and finite being I cannot begin to fully fathom the Holy Mystery. I think we all just do the best we can while on the planet...truth will be fully apparent to us when we are finally in the presence of our Lord.

Please forgive me...before I was a nurse, I was a historian (and I'm the wife of a historian/college instructor) and I am very guilty of looking at the Bible and Christian History through the lens of someone who spent countless hours in classes studying biblical sources and hearing endless theories on the social and political realities that impacted the compilation and editing of scripture. It is hard for me to turn of that part of my brain and act like the Bible dropped out of the sky whole and complete without any arguments about which books it would contain or any revisions. Mind you, I'm not saying that my perspective is right, just that it is how I view it. Like everyone else, I am a product of my time, culture, experience and education...my understanding (like any human's) is highly subjective!

Ironically, for all my questions and examining my faith, I have always believed absolutely in Christ's divinity. I may have questioned everything else, but my belief in God remains rock solid. Now, what I believe about particular doctrines, church structures, etc...that has changed and evolved over time. So Christ alone is my fortress. :)

:clap:

[Colabomb]

I certainly agree with you WRT the Divinity of Christ and needing to listen to Him. I think the gray area is how we each discern what He is saying. Balancing scripture, tradition and reason is a good thing. Depending too much on any one leg of the stool can throw one off balance (I personally tend to try to reason things out on my own too much...I trust in God's great mercy to forgive me my foibles.)

(Gets ready to wade into shark-infested waters wearing a swimsuit of headless herring...) I love scripture and find the Bible to be poetic and beautiful, and I think it contains the best link to the words and actions of Christ, but...I also know that it was written by human men (no matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit) and translated by human men, edited and selected (with the canon of scripture decided by council) by men. So while I think it is a great resource, I also don't view it as inerrant.

Tradition, too, has been influenced by cultural and historical trends...and I don't view it as inerrant.

Reason...well that certainly isn't inerrant! We all have a different perspective and experience that colors our perception of events.

So please don't think I present my opinion as some sort of FACT. I am totally aware that, as a limited and finite being I cannot begin to fully fathom the Holy Mystery. I think we all just do the best we can while on the planet...truth will be fully apparent to us when we are finally in the presence of our Lord.

Please forgive me...before I was a nurse, I was a historian (and I'm the wife of a historian/college instructor) and I am very guilty of looking at the Bible and Christian History through the lens of someone who spent countless hours in classes studying biblical sources and hearing endless theories on the social and political realities that impacted the compilation and editing of scripture. It is hard for me to turn of that part of my brain and act like the Bible dropped out of the sky whole and complete without any arguments about which books it would contain or any revisions. Mind you, I'm not saying that my perspective is right, just that it is how I view it. Like everyone else, I am a product of my time, culture, experience and education...my understanding (like any human's) is highly subjective!

Ironically, for all my questions and examining my faith, I have always believed absolutely in Christ's divinity. I may have questioned everything else, but my belief in God remains rock solid. Now, what I believe about particular doctrines, church structures, etc...that has changed and evolved over time. So Christ alone is my fortress. :)
No matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit?

So God can't overcome human Weakness?

If the infinite God can't write a perfect revelation to man, how can we ever expect Him to save us?

[higgs2]

No matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit?

So God can't overcome human Weakness?

If the infinite God can't write a perfect revelation to man, how can we ever expect Him to save us?
So you're saying the bible is a perfect revelation to man?

[Wiffey]

I certainly believe that God CAN save us...but the Bible is not God (Inspired? Yes. Inerrant...I don't believe so.), IMO. And if the Bible IS inerrant, which version?

The fact is that there are no original copies of the New Testament (or even any of the Gospels). What we've got are copies. And not copies of the original, but copies of copies. From a time period where copying was imprecise at best. And the oldest copies do not match one another exactly.

I'm reading an interesting book on this issue called "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. He's the chair of the religious studies dept. @ UNC Chapel Hill. He's a former fundamentalist whose faith evolved as he became a biblical scholar and started reading the texts in Greek & Hebrew.

I don't think one needs to view the Bible as a perfect revelation of God's word in order to believe. We are saved by Christ, not by the KJV.

[karen freeinchristman]

We are saved by Christ, not by the KJV.
:amen:

[Colabomb]

I admit there are small differences in texts and in translations and codexes.

Don't treat me as a blind KJVer.

(I actually am quite a fan of the NASB)

But, the Scriptures, in every edition, convey certain facts clearly.

When I say the Scriptures are inerrant, I mean that the message of God's Perfect word is present. I don't care about typos, word order or snipets of text that make no difference.

[CSMR]

So while I think [scripture] is a great resource, I also don't view it as inerrant.

Tradition, too, has been influenced by cultural and historical trends...and I don't view it as inerrant.

Reason...well that certainly isn't inerrant! We all have a different perspective and experience that colors our perception of events.
If these three things are fallible, why would the combination be any less fallible? It would seem the natural conclusion would be to reject all three and look elsewhere, rather than to rely on all three.
truth will be fully apparent to us when we are finally in the presence of our Lord.
Amen

[CSMR]

No. I disagree entirely, the bold portion of the quote above. I'm fine with it if you feel convinced of this, but if what you are saying is that there is no possible way we can understand God, Christianity or the gospel any differently today than we did in the first 500 years or so of the Church, then I disagree entirely. :sorry:
There is only one true understanding of God, which is by the Holy Spirit. We do not visibly have this understanding, our psychological and intellectual make up does not have it. The spirit which is given to us has it.
So I am not praising the early church, or advocating, psychologically speaking, keeping their understandings.

Let me quote from 1 Corinthians 2. I don't normally quote so much but all this is so apt:
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
I think we have a differing view of what the term 'Christianity' actually means. By using that term, I am not referring to the gospel, or to tradition, but to a living, growing, Spirit-guided, relationship-based, life-giving, life-saving, purpose-making orientation which people enter iinto both on a personal level and on an institutional level as the Church. What is your own definition of 'Christianity' (from your own heart and mind)? :confused:
It is the orientation towards God in repentance and faith, guided by the Spirit, giving and saving life and purpose, that is, the receiving of the gospel. None of this is anything we can do, but may God have mercy on us and account us faithful in Christ.
But these are my