Steve is (W)right on this issue. I guarantee that, while I’m pleased to affirm that I have taken Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, it would be quite simple for WV Woman or any of her conservative-Christian colleagues on this board to list off a series of questions on things they consider important tenets of their own faith that I would have to answer some of negatively.
One of the classic problems in recent theological debate has been the denouncing of John Shelby Spong, who sincerely believes in God in a John A.T. Robinson understanding of how He operates, on the basis of some of his writings in which he explicitly denies “theism” – the catch being that Spong, as a mid-Century theological student, is using the term in the sense Paul Tillich did, of one who believes in a God who regularly and overtly intervenes in a miraculous, supernatural, breaking-natural-law way in the world. I believe in miracles, to be sure, but in ones that do not contravene natural law and are much more subtle than that.
As another minor hijack, John, I’m wondering if there’s an inadvertent miswording in this:
I suspect strongly that it was John the Beloved Disciple, not Jesus (who ascended 40 days after the Resurrection) to whom Irenaeus and Papias referred as living to a ripe old age. For the reason for my particular interest in the question, kindly refer to my screen name.
THOU SHALT NOT USE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN
was a commandment against organized religion? whether the preacher is sincere or not is irrelevant. noone really needs a middleman between them and god. religion is just brainwashing into dependency.
Just to clarify once again these were the Protestant clergy, no priests studied in this book.
I don’t see doubt as a bad thing either. But I do see a dishonesty problem with quite a few of the clergy, Protestant and Catholic, liberal and conservative, who will still feed the same old stories with a hell of a lot of spin and conviction to influence others into thinking the Bible says something it doesn’t say. Just looking at this board, look how one poster confidently stated how the Bible states not to have sex before, when in fact, as Polycarp also attests to, there is no scripture. There was another poster on this thread, who asserted, “every time someone came up with the brilliant idea of taking more than one wife, bad things happened,” and the poster went on to say it “doesn’t take much to read the Bible and come to the conclusion that polygamy is a bad idea from that reading.” Had our poster indeed read the pertinent scriptures, he would have certainly realized that reading it showed just the opposite of what he had been taught. This is how skillful dishonest preachers are into convincing those who haven’t spent as much time reading or studying the Bible on their own.
**In short; I believe that if God had wanted us to question our faith, He would have given us brains. **
Well, that’s cute, but since doubt causes one to question and you don’t think doubt is necessarily a bad thing, not sure how you can say something like this without feeling like you’re equivocating. If they took their doubt public, what harm would that do? Why do they need to keep it in the closet?
Not sure I agree with you there, dal_timgar… certainly, we all have to find our own way to the truth in the end, but an organized church allows us to support each other - to learn from each other’s experiences, and lend one another strength - as we do so. I think that’s an implicit part of Christianity - we Christians are supposed to help others, rather than simply be concerned for our own salvation.
Of course, hierarchical organized religion does afford the possibility of abuse of authority… but it’s possible to guard against that. And, if we were all treading our individual paths without any sort of guidance… how far would any of us get?
Polycarp, it would be difficult for me to think he was talking about John, but let me get some things done outside, meanwhile I’ll re-read the entire thing again, and I’ll get back with you this evening.
Ummm… a Protestant clergyman is still a priest (if you accept his/her ordination as valid, but let’s not open that can of worms again…) I try to use it as a denomination-neutral term, if you want me to substitute “ordained minister” or some such, I’m cool with that.
Well, I concede there are almost certainly some out-and-out frauds - and this is a bad thing, and we should get rid of them. I’m just questioning how many of your survey’s respondents are actual frauds, versus how many are just working through their faith and trying to understand.
This is what we need our God-given brains for…
I’m quite serious. As a Christian, I feel that my relationship with God needs to be examined, and affirmed, using the critical intelligence He gave me. If I run away from my doubts, and seek refuge in, say, the repetition by rote of Bible verses, then my faith is founded on the denial of my own abilities. I don’t want that.
Many of them do take it public, in an appropriate forum - literature like The Dark Night of the Soul, theological discussions like The Myth of God Incarnate. I think, ultimately, much religious literature derives from facing doubt, resolving it, and then showing other people how it was done. But the forum has to be appropriate - Church services, in many cases, are rituals which reaffirm continuity within a community; nothing wrong with that, but not the right place for advances in theology.
I am going to try and assume that this comment was not meant to be as insulting as it comes across.
But I have read the pertinent scriptures, and to me, the nasty interfamily fights that resulted when Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David, and Solomon took multiple wives are bad things. Perhaps you disagree with my conclusion (and that may be a valid disagreement), but your assumption that I’m just parroting what I have been taught by lying preachers is offensive.
Nope, no need to open that can of worms again; being from Southern US, I wasn’t sure if we were misunderstanding each other, since this is the first time I’ve heard Protestant ministers/ pastors/reverends as priests, and I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
This particular book doesn‘t deal with out-and-out frauds. It does delve heavily into the psychology that is used with the Conservative Protestant sects of Christianity.
I wasn’t sure if you was joking or not with the other piece, but you rephrasing and elaborating on it more helps me try to understand your point of view much better.
Polycarp, I’ll continue on with this one hijack only, but won’t take on any more on with this thread. Besides I realize I’m responsible for even hijacking my own thread. I spent another 30 minutes reading and studying this particular cite I gave Neurotic:
I suspect strongly that it was John the Beloved Disciple, not Jesus (who ascended 40 days after the Resurrection) to whom Irenaeus and Papias referred as living to a ripe old age.
That might be worth looking at, but you’re not in disagreement with Irenaeus stating Jesus lived over 50 years old though, correct? And would you disagree with Irenaeus arguing for a much longer teaching career for Jesus than the synoptic gospels portray? As far as what I put in bold type from you, perhaps there is a section that would suggest/imply/state that. It’s been awhile seen I’ve been read through these long-winded church fathers works, and really only seen brief pieces from Papias, and not sure what specific texts you may have in mind.
on this issue. I guarantee that, while I’m pleased to affirm that I have taken Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, it would be quite simple for WV Woman or any of her conservative-Christian colleagues on this board to list off a series of questions on things they consider important tenets of their own faith that I would have to answer some of negatively.
I spent another 30 minutes reading and studying this particular cite I gave Neurotic: