I always felt that there was a tension between the official beliefs of the Methodist Church (whatever they may have been) and what the folks coming to the churcn on Sundays actually believed, and that was the reason I finally ended up not feeling comfortable going there.
I mean, for the most part they weren’t comfortable identifying clauses in the official belief structure that they didn’t agree with. They just got evasive and changed the subject to something they were more comfortable with.
I had a whole lot of respect for the preacher’s son when he said, to the rest of us in the youth group, “I don’t believe in life after death”.
I myself reached the point where I could hero-worship Jesus of Nazareth for the things he had taught but could not view him as a God, or as a child of God in a sense different from how the rest of us are children of God. I could not believe he had been in any way “sent” or had “come down”, but instead could only relate to the dude as a person like the rest of us who had sought out wisdom and understanding, had taught and led, and had upset some people and been killed for it.
I had no interest in an external God whose identity I did not participate in. I didn’t believe in life after death in the traditional sense either, although I cam e to believe that my individual self isn’t by any means the entirety of who I am.
And other stuff. I had beliefs and viewpoints that weren’t mainstream Methodist and to my way of thinking if we weren’t going to compare notes and share that stuff, what was the point of going to church? I could find other people to hang out with if I just needed a feeling of belonging and connection.
Then the Bible contains numerous passages that are not “Biblical.”
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit” (Isaiah 14:12-15).
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them” (Job 1:6).
“And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:17, 18).
“And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Revelation 12:3, 4, 7-9 ).
Not true. This is certainly NOT the case with either the Catholic or Orthodox churches, and I can’t imagine anyone who wouldn’t consider either of those “mainstream Christians”.
I don’t even think all Protestant denominations follow this.
Thanks for the info! So Holy Virgin Mary non only did conceive immaculately, she was conceived herself immaculately in order to be able to do so? I sense a problem with recursivity there, but perhaps I am understanding the meaning of *conceived *wrongly. So according to Catholics the human soul gets original sin via contagion from the parents, but then how could she remain sin-less? And, accepting the premise that this was so for the sake of the argument, what about Jesus himself? How could he avoid getting the original sin from his mother’s side according to the different doctrines?
In order:
Not quite. The “point” of the Immaculate Conception is that, by being created special on the same blank-slate state as Adam and Eve, Mary was able to retake their original choice without the inherited bias. She wasn’t conceived immaculately so she wouldn’t pass original sin to Baby Jesse, but so she’d be able to choose on an “equal ground” basis. Her response to the angel’s “you’re gonna have a baby” was straightforward, with no temptation to play it coy or to tweak the angel’s nose. She didn’t play word games, she didn’t troll. Note that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was pushed heavily by the Spanish, a culture which prides itself on both coyness (well, people from the South, us Northerners are too thick-headed for those games) and trolling. Our basic reaction if we’d met that angel would have been somewhere between “you and what flaming-sword carrying army?”, “oh, I don’t know… fluttering lashes” and “yeah, no. Maybe? Explain that again willya”.
It’s a miracle. Oh, and a mystery (the RCC really likes those, specially when it comes to Mariology). It’s one of those things we’re supposed to accept but not to understand; it’s perfectly fine if it doesn’t make total sense.
I generally stop listening to someone when their religion includes understanding who is going to hell. I read once that righteousness was not subject to judgement by man. I am a man, so I figure that includes me. Since I also read that “None are righteous, no not one.” I pretty much don’t count on that for a break. Judgement seems to me to be a perilous thing to engage in. Something about as you have judged, so shall you be judged.
So, I am left with the possibility (or rather assurance) that the way I treat the “least of His children” might have some relevance. So, I try not to spend a lot of time with mean, hurtful, hateful people because . . . well, they are mean, and hurtful, and hateful, and I don’t like that. I try really hard not to be mean and hurtful, and hateful myself, on the off chance that some particular person is “the least guy” I heard about.
I also heard about a guy who admitted to the Lord Himself “I did not know You!” and the Lord cut him some slack because he gave a hungry guy food, and a thirsty guy water, and went to visit a guy in jail.
I figure, falling short of the perfect example of God is pretty much the best I can hope for. But trying to point that way and failing means I need to be forgiven. I guess I will have to count on the infinite love of the Lord. It’s not my religion. It’s my faith.
I do try to keep an eye out for that guy, though. I mean, can you imagine being at the Throne of God, and have Him ask you “Where is that sinner I sent to you for comfort?” And you have to tell Him, “Oh, I told that guy to go to hell.”
21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
No, I do not understand it, but it is OK. Well, then there only remains for me to take note and keep on wondering why people take this subtleties so seriously. What strikes me as interesting is the difference in attitude concerning religious matters between Americans and Europeans. Another kind of mistery. Thank you very much for your answer, but today it is me who is busy, I must move on.
Interesting to see another view from what I grew up with. One Mormon view is that even stating you don’t believe in God after having received the gift of the Holy Ghost (which all Mormons receive after baptism) is the unpardonable sin. The only mitigating factor for Peter denying Christ after the crucifixion was that he had not received the Holy Ghost. Otherwise it would have been unforgivable.
That would mean that me, as an ex-Mormon would be destined for Outer Darkness, if Mormonism is actually true. The good news for everyone else in the thread, is that no one else has been baptized as Mormons, so you won’t be joining me in avery uncomfortable place if Mormonism winds up being the only true church.
I don’t see how language is an issue here. Actually most Mormons do not study the Bible carefully. This comes from having modern prophets who interpret the meaning of the Bible. The Bible isn’t taught as a standalone subject but rather the lessons are built around what the modern prophets has said about the verses. The Book of Mormon and other exclusively Mormon scriptures are often given more weight.
Someone is missing the point of this thread.
The lesson was not a comprehensive course on Christianity nor was it discussing its core beliefs. It was a lesson on Easter, which means that it specificalydiscussed the resurrection. The questions are not strange for someone who was a Mormon, and if they are considered strange by people, that is simply an indication that non-Mormons do not understand Mormonism any better than Mormons understand other Christians.
Mormons have a doctrine of the Plan of Salvation, which starts off with the pre-existence; including the creation of the spirits, Satan, Jesus, and the Great War; then talks about the current existence here on Earth and then what happens after people die and the Second Coming. This is the core of Mormonism and heavily emphasized. I taught it in Sunday school as well as on my LDS mission to Japan.
When people compare cultures or religions they start with what they know about their own culture or religion. If a non-Mormon were to ask questions to a Mormon, I would expect that they would questions which Mormons would not consider important.
As promised, I’m back to discuss this in a little more detail.
Joseph Smith’s theology evolved considerable between when he produced the Book of Mormon and when he died, going through many changes. One of these changes involved the godhood. The Book of Mormon, written prior to the founding of the Church, was apparently written with a modal view of God.
There were two major branches of Christianity. Not one, two major ones. And a whole lot of lesser ones.
Do you know anything about the Arians that I cited? That persisted until the 8th century and then the idea got revived later on?
And that’s one of many alternate Christian groups that existed before the Reformation. The Church of the East (Nestorians) continues today in several sects, several of which are not in communion with either the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox churches.
If you don’t understand how divided Christianity has been its entire existence, you are not in a position to question other people’s knowledge.
Mainstream Christian denominations all hold that there is such a thing as hell and such a thing as heaven. Different denominations (and individuals) have differing emphases and interpretations about those things but the concept is alive and well. There is a trend in Episcopalianism toward liberalism, but there are very conservative movements in other churches.
Not sure what you mean by modern theology. Theology is generally rather resistant to change, compared to politics and culture, since it tends to be formulated by old bureaucrats after decades of discussion and then carefully written down in special books. There have been radical theologies proposed throughout the entire timeline of Christian history – along with mighty struggles to suppress them.
Satan was not ‘invented’ by early Christians, more like inherited from Judaism, and influenced by other religions of that time and place including Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, etc., as well as the teachings of Jesus.
I’m getting the feeling that the OP is trying to understand Christian doctrine as if it was analogous to Mormonism. But Mormonism is a wholly invented, 19th century sect with a single originator, which only touches other monotheistic religions in rather small ways, in my understanding. Christianity is vast, has a 2000 year history, thousands of branches, and is based upon another religion which goes back to the Bronze Age.
No it wasn’t in your original post. But I was responding to somebody who asked wrt to ‘where does Satan come’ whether a particular point was from ‘the English translation of the Bible’, to which I just answered English has no special position in Christianity in general. Whereas in Mormonism English is the original language, though that’s not 100% relevant to what you originally asked either.
I think this is one of the points though. Since you’re ex-Mormon I hope it’s not impolite to say it’s sketchy whether LDS is really, as opposed to politely called, a Christian sect. The view not only of specific doctrines but the whole role of doctrine and how it evolves seems pretty different than Catholicism, Orthodox or old line Protestant sects (which are collectively a big majority of world Christians though less conventional P’s are growing faster). I’m not sure a Mormon is really that well positioned to explain about Christianity based on recollection of their own religious schooling. Though obviously a Mormon who has studied Christianity more broadly could be the best in the world at it.
The other point relates to ‘ex’. Like I said, if a teacher in the West in the past or maybe very conservative Christian part of the US now tried to teach Islam but was oh-so-careful not to seem in any way to endorse any of its beliefs in any way, they could easily end up focusing on trivialities compared to what believers view is important about the religion. I think this is also now a factor in post/ex-Christian Western teachers’ teaching about Christianity. IMO you have to make the leap of putting yourself in the hypothetical the position of believer to understand any religion. And again modern ‘liberal’ US teachers have no qualms about doing that in teaching non-Christian religions in a secular setting (despite occasional kerfuffles about it again generally in conservative areas and/or from conservative media cherry picking extreme cases). Christianity is a stickier topic for post-Christian Westerners.
(Bolding mine). This very question was a matter of some discussion and concern in the 14th century; did the souls of the dead see God (an experience they called “the Beatific Vision”) immediately, or only after the Second Coming? Pope John XXIII thought the Beatific Vision was delayed until Judgement Day. This poked the hornet’s nest, because it called into question the efficacy of praying to saints, or even the Virgin, for intervention; if they don’t see God before you do, then your what’s the point of asking them to put in a word with the Big Guy for you? Why then waste your florins endowing masses for your soul to be sung by the monastery down the road? Given that such foundations were not-insignificant portion of some orders’ revenues, the question was not simply an abstruse dispute of only theoretical relevance.
Ah, so that would explain my confusion. I got my concepts wrong. That seems to make sense, if you accept the premises.
May I ask you to what degree you accept those premises? From 0 to 100%, how much would you say you believe those description of events, if your believe is measurable in numbers? Not to hyde my point of view: I appreciate the attempt at logical coherence and terminological clarity, but I believe your explanation is not true at all. I hope this does not offend you and this does not come across as rude, I am sincerely curious: I would like to know if you think those dogmas are to be believed literally. If your answer is yes I would also be interested in what you think of people like me who do not believe them.
Well, I haven’t explained anything, other than (hopefully) clearing up a misunderstanding about the meaning of certain terms.
As to what degree I accept these premises, I am a practicing Catholic. I am not sure my belief in either the virgin birth of Jesus or the Immaculate Conception is numerically quantifiable. I accept the teaching authority of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches us that virgin birth and the Immaculate Conception are indeed to to be understood as literally true.
As to what I think of people who don’t believe the dogmas of the Catholic Church, I don’t think much about that at all. I certainly don’t believe they’re condemned to Hell or anything like that. Actually, I tend, like the 14th-century English mystic Julian of Norwich, towards a belief in universal salvation (a belief which is, while not endorsed by the Catholic Church, not condemned either).
The claim for Enoch is not that Isaiah’s (and others’) passages are not biblical, but that references to and ideas about “Lucifer” and “Satan” have undergone changes through time.
Lucifer is simply a Latin word meaning “bearer of light” and many scholars regard the passage in Isaiah 14 to be a reference to an actual earthly prince of the time the passage in Isaiah was written whom Isaiah was claiming would fall from grace.
The Satan (adversary) of Job is regarded as a literary character portraying a member of God’s court who presents an argument in regard to a specific theological point to be argued through the rest of the book.
The author of the Book of Enoch took these literary allusions and built upon them to portray a genuine opponent of God with (in Enoch’s view) a genuine fallen angel who works to undermine humanity. Based on Enoch’s interpretation the authors of Luke and Revelation used that literary character to make their own points regarding human sin. Certainly, at the time of Jesus, the (by then 200+ year old) book was being quoted and the person of the evil being was treated as genuine being.
However, the ideas surrounding Lucifer/Satan that appear in Luke and Peter and the highly metaphorical Revelation were not “biblical” in the sense of originating from the Bible since the references in the later books originated and were developed outside biblical books.
Agreed. The one Christian principle that I think is common to all denominations is the divinity of Jesus. Note that I’m not saying there aren’t individuals who consider themselves Christians but who eschew the notion of the divine nature of Jesus, but I don’t think there are entire denominations.
#/media/File:Plan_of_Salvation.jpg)