This post is guaranteed to go all over the map, given where this thread has been so far…
First, to Satan, it’s reasonable to impose a condition in your original post; you’ve done it yourself. “Suppose that… In that case, what would…?” I agree that such suppositions ought to be spelled out, but it was reasonably well implicit. Although the answer in its absence would be, “if Christian doctrine is right, then {whatever you care to specify}, but if it’s wrong, then UUism.”
I think Navigator has the right perspective – each of us is different, and no one church has the proper paraphenalia to be the right place for everyone. For Barb and me, with our taste for ritual, need for intellectual honesty, commitment to the Apostolic tradition, hunger for the Eucharist, and so on, the Episcopal Church is near perfect. Navigator and Mrs. Gator, IIRC, would be about as nourished there as CMKeller in a Smithfield Hams Restaurant. Some people look for certitude in a Book, others in a Tradition, others see it as a mountain peak towards which they journey, and still others in the juxtaposition of paradoxical points. Each has its virtues and vices, and each has a denomination suitable to their tastes.
'Gator, you don’t have to be a Roman Catholic to go to confession! Neither I nor WOI are, and we use it from time to time! (I wonder what a Baptist minister would do if someone came to him to hear their confession.)
On the six points, I’d have to stand with Navigator, practically verbatim. Except that I think God reveals himself when and where He chooses, and it’s not for us to judge what that place ought to be. (But we can ask…)
The gay priests? I guarantee you that every single Christian alive – including even Fred Phelps – would say that if they remain celibate, take Jesus as Savior and Lord, are baptized in the faith and hold steadfastly to it, they’ve got nothing to worry about. Various of us would delete one or more provisions from that list, but we’d all agree that anyone who does all four certainly has fulfilled what God expects.
Can I point out that making presumptions about what a Christian believes or does not believe and then arguing on the basis of them is doing a real straw-man exercise if not a troll in the strict sense? And is disrespectful in some ways as well, making the presumption as it does that the person in question may not have thought through the sorts of issues you raise (e.g., 30 years between Christ’s death and writing of Gospels) and come to conclusions different from yours?
I had a priest once who taught at the local college and had a plaque on his office wall that said, “Jesus came to take away our sins – not your mind.”
I think that is a great way to look at it. Assume something is wrong and seek to prove it – through trial and error you will eventually arrive at what you feel is ‘the truth’. There is a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict that seeks to answer a lot of the ‘historical’ arguments. I have not read it but a trusted friend speaks highly of it. Also see * Don’t Check Your Brains at the Door *.
I think this is a much better way to phrase the question. The church I attend is a non-denominational ‘Bible Church’. We base our church organization and theology on what is written in the Bible and opinions on other religions run from ‘Catholics are a cult just like the Scientologists’ to ‘I can’t find fault in anyone who honestly professes the word of God’ – basically the full gambit. If you press one of the ministers on an issue they will most likely tell you to do your own research and draw you own conclusions. Jesus spent a lot of his time with sinners – too often religious people of ALL faiths tend to judge others from narrow viewpoints. Seems if we would spend more time LIVING like Christians (or Hindus or Muslims) instead of ACTING like them we would all be better off.
Navigator – OK – I get the connection with the name now…one of my best friends used to be active in the Navs.
Probably one of the best answers I have ever heard – if less people “knew” the truth and more people sought the truth we would all be better off.
thanks for replying in such depth.
I read your link. I have some questions about it.
The author says ‘Another obvious problem is that it’s sometimes hard to tell the quacks from those who really have significant experience and wisdom in this area.’
That’s one of my main points. You say the Mormons are wrong over Joseph Smith, and that Christian Scientists are wrong over blood transfusions. But they believe in Jesus and read the same scriptures as you. So how do you know you’re right?
The author continues ‘There is something ‘beyond’ the physical universe – something that ‘caused’ this one.’
OK, that’s possible. What’s the evidence?
‘The vast majority of humans believe in some ‘beyond’ reality, which is somehow involved in the events or character of the physical universe.’
Well there are a number of beliefs. So it’s worth investigating.
‘The conceptions of this “beyond” vary widely, of course, but the fact of ‘beyondness’ is quite widely accepted.’
And suddenly it’s become a FACT?! Just because there are several major (contradictory) religions, and most people believe in ‘something’ is NOT evidence.
Next comes ‘And, as problematic as it might seem at first philosophically, the notion of a First Cause (to start the whole thing) that is itself “un-caused” seems much less problematic than some “infinite regress” chain of causes extending infinitely backward–but never having something to actually start it.’
So he states that the idea of infinite existence is problematical, and it is more likely that God (who has presumably ‘always existed’) is the answer.
This is not logical!
Further ‘This Person created us to have hopes, dreams, fears, and to constantly question “why am I here?”, “what’s the point of it all?”, “how can I be happy?”, “how can I make a difference?”.’
Now a set of ‘beliefs’ has become ‘one Person’. Still no evidence or logical process behind the derivation of these statements.
Further ‘We are therefore critically dependent on some communication/instruction from the "Person Outside.
What would this communication ‘look like’? It would have to be in history (for us to have access to it at all), recorded (for us to have access to it regardless of our place in time), linguistic and translatable (for us to have access to it regardless of our language), and in ‘everyday’ language’.
At last something to study. So the Bible will be in everyday language…
‘There are some passages that totally escape me, and there are some passages that are as clear as the nose on my face. … Ezekiel 1:6-10:
Each of them had four faces and four wings. And their legs were straight and their feet were like a calf’s hoof, and they gleamed like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides were human hands, As for the faces and wings of the four of them, their wings touched one another; their faces did not turn when they moved, each went straight forward. As for the form of their faces, each had the face of a man, all four had the face of a lion on the right and the face of a bull on the left, and all four had the face of an eagle…’
Apparently not.
Finally ‘You can also learn a lot about Him from His ‘social circles.’ Others that have had this relationship for longer than you can function as ‘older brothers or sisters’ in sharing what they know. Leverage this! (Make sure you get the right crowd, though. You want people who are into ‘the relationship’, not into ‘religion.’ Christianity, not Church-anity.’
Yes, but WHICH is the ‘right crowd’? It’s not the Mormons or the Christian Scientists. Is it a Protestant or a Catholic sect?
You said ‘I think that the Pope is one of many ‘vicars’ on earth at the present time. There are many other Godly men that are able to teach true doctrine based on the scriptures.’
Who are they, please?
polycarp,
hello.
You posted ‘The gay priests? I guarantee you that every single Christian alive – including even Fred Phelps – would say that if they remain celibate, take Jesus as Savior and Lord, are baptized in the faith and hold steadfastly to it, they’ve got nothing to worry about.’
And if they are NOT celibate, presumably they do burn in hell forever?
I think you are forgetting that any sin (and I am not saying that Homosexuality is a sin, but some consider it so) can be forgiven thru the infinite mercy of Jesus.
Again, all Christian sects have “the truth”, if their faith is what calls to you. Other religions certainly have 'truth" also. The 'truth" varies upon the needs & faith of the worshiper. The contradictions/differences are illusionary & unimportant- compared the the “big truth”- which is finding the faith that you believe in.
The question is addressed to Christians, so Satan, what “many others” would “take issue with” is irrelevant. Obviously those who do not believe that Christianity is the truth would not be able to answer the question.
John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life…”
Christians would likely argue that Jesus Christ himself is the truth, along with perhaps the knowledge and practices related to salvation and the worship of him. If you want to speculate that the truth is something else, then that is a different topic does not fit into the context of this thread.
Yes, I understand that the idea Jesus can accept sincere repentance.
I’m asking about a gay priest who says his active sexuality is NOT a sin. Does he burn in Hell forever?
Do you mean that religion is a deeply personal affair, that we can’t agree on the truth and that the only thing all Christians agree on is that Jesus is God and redemption comes through him?
My problem at present is that there are so many differences between the various branches of the Christian church.
Would you like to answer my questions? (as Navigator did above).
It’s not just Southern American Baptists who state women priests are unacceptable. The Church of England is deeply split over the matter.
Isn’t this important?
Are these Southern American Baptists correct?
Should prospective women priests move to another state?
And what are these ‘practices related to salvation’?
Would you like to answer the questions I posed to Navigator?
His answers showed he believes the Mormons and the Christian Scientists are wrong in key areas.
Do you think women priests are acceptable?
Is this referring to me?
I’m not making ‘presumptions about what Christians believe’. I know the Catholic position on the Pope and contraception. I know that Mormons claim a new prophet. I know that Christian Scientists forbid blood transfusions.
Let me review my contribution to the thread.
I quoted a fundamentalist Christian.
I asked what the truth was (because of the contradictions in Christian doctrine).
I asked some questions which reveal something about what a person believes Christianity does or doesn’t cover.
I answered these questions myself because Navigator asked me to.
Along the way I posted:
‘I think Jesus said some remarkable things, and we would all do well to study and practise them.
My problem is that I have met a few Christians who terrify me. Now maybe they are just misguided souls. How do I tell?’
And this makes me trollish?
I think your priest would approve of me - I am using my mind to gather information and ask questions. I’m doing it politely.
You have so far ducked the question of ACTIVE gay priests. Will they go to Hell?
I’ll try to flesh out your comments from the text, if I miss one, please forgive me.
As an aside, I noticed that I missed taking your last question out the last time I posted, thanks for answering the questions, even though it was not my intention to ask.
Additionally, I didn’t write the article, so my answers may vary from Glenn’s. You may want to drop him an email with your questions as well.
Good question. One that I submit to God in just about everyday. I compare scripture to scripture, I read commentaries, and histories. I read apologetic resources, and compare that to scripture, and finally I pray to God with a humble heart that he may equip me to understand and relate the truth.
Granted, it is probable that LDS and CS believers do the exact same thing I do, and come to completely different conclusions. Since we are both influenced by our sin nature, we are both apt to misinterpret on one side or the other. I don’t think God will judge based on how good one’s theology is, but on the condition of their heart.
A friend of mine has this in his signature.
I think that is the proper attitude when dealing with other believers in theological disagreements, as well as others outside of the faith. We are not the judge of others, we are responsible for the condition of our own heart, and that alone.
Sorry, got a little long winded there…
On a purely philosophical stance, isn’t that the question that humanity has always asked? Some believe there is ‘something’ else out there, and others believe that we are a cosmic accident. I think it is acceptable to assume one side of the argument, and work from that premise, instead of demanding proof for each step along the way.
Glenn might put forward the ‘Anthropic Principle’ as a peice of evidence. That the universe seems fine tuned to generate life, may imply that there is ‘something’ out there.
[quote] ‘The vast majority of humans believe in some ‘beyond’ reality, which is somehow involved in the events or character of the physical universe.’
Well there are a number of beliefs. So it’s worth investigating.
‘The conceptions of this “beyond” vary widely, of course, but the fact of ‘beyondness’ is quite widely accepted.’
And suddenly it’s become a FACT?! Just because there are several major (contradictory) religions, and most people believe in ‘something’ is NOT evidence.
[quote]
I think you may be splitting hairs, I think the evidence of the ‘fact of beyondness’ that he implies here is based on historical evidiences of ancient cultures particularly in the Near East. The historical setting is the POV that Glenn is operating from, and through that lens, the ancient cultures of Epgyt and Palestine, all had some sort of ‘beyondness’ belief. Even today a wide specturm of people have a belief that there is something beyond our phyiscal experience. I don’t think it is much of a leap as you are asserting. YMMV.
I don’t think he asserts it is ‘the answer’, I think he states that from his POV a causal agent is more probable than a random, undirected chain of events. Surely this isn’t illogical.
Lets flip this around, do you ask the questions he details? How do you explain the genus of those questions?
This essay is meant to be a conversation, not a rigid, logical proof. For a believer to assert that this ‘beyondness’ is a singular entity isn’t that big of a leap. Surely a Christian will have certian experiential data to make such a statement. You may choose to define such experience as a mix of brain chemicals, but I think we have the right to gracefully disagree with your assessment.
Not really a question…
another statement. Hmmm… Did you crack open a bible and read any other portions, or just leap to the difficult parts that he admits are difficult to understand. The vast majority of scripture is in everyday language (at least everyday Hebrew, Greek, or Aramic). The rest need some help in understanding the culture at the time, and other historical references. Even the strange prophetic passages may have made complete sense to the ancient reader.
Heck, pick one. You stated you disagree with the Mormons and the Christian Scientists. Fine. how about you pick one church from the Catholic faith, and one from the Protestant tradition. While your at it, grab an Orthodox church as well. Visit the church. Shake hands with the people. Attend a Sunday School class, listen to a sermon, ask questions of the pastor/minister/priest.
Back to the unity quote my friend uses. All of those churches agree to some extent to the ‘essentials’. Some list more essentials than others, but even as a minimal set, the vast majority of Christian orthodox tradition hold to the same set of essentials.
You said ‘I think that the Pope is one of many ‘vicars’ on earth at the present time. There are many other Godly men that are able to teach true doctrine based on the scriptures.’ Pick one that has the ring of truth to you. If you are truly searching, I fully believe that God will answer your call.
I think you are asking us to sit in a seat that is reserved for another. None of us can sit in the chair anothers heart and actions. We are flesh and blood just like you, and I strongly hesitate to take the leap that you do in judging anothers actions. The only criteria that I read in the scriptures is accepting that our actions do nothing to bring us closer to God. His actions alone are sufficent, to walk into the Grace of God, one only needs to accept that are sinful, and that the only person that can restore that relationship is God. Then allow that relationship to start, and be open to being molded.
Think of it this way. You have an agrument with your father. You leave the house, and vow never to talk to your father again. You run as far away as you can. Years pass, your heart softens, your life hasn’t turned out the way you expected. There are some questions you want to ask your father, but you don’t know where he is. You can do one of two things, start looking for him, or bury the nagging questions and keep on living. If you start searching, you may find him, and more than likely he will be glad to start talking to you again.
Glee, good morning! Sorry it’s taken a while to get to answering you; I’ve been busy, and then exhausted, for the past few days.
What I said regarding the gay priests was intended, and had all kinds of restrictive clauses on it to show this, to cover what every Christian would consider a valid answer. It had the additional virtue of distinguishing, as I think our gay friends would appreciate, between the person and his behavior. The priests are, in my response, gay because of orientation, not because of their lovemaking or lack thereof. For me, and most people in my denomination and a few others, no problem: however we may personally feel about gay sexual practices, it’s one of the “maybe sin, maybe not, depending on circumstances” in exactly the same way that heterosex in the missionary person can conceivably be sin and can conceivably be precisely what the people in question should be doing. Are they on their wedding night, or two people married to others and intentionally and secretly cheating on their marriage vows? There are a lot of people who profess the Christian faith who believe that any instance of homosexual acts is ipso facto a sin. And there are people who, like ‘Gator and myself (who I believe disagree on the overt question), feel that this is a case of judgment being done by people not in a position to judge. To wit, God and I are the two judges of my behavior, and that’s the limit of my judgment. As a Christian, I can call a brother or sister in Christ to reexamine his or her actions or expressed views in the light of the belief we share, as I did with FriendofGod a month or two ago when he was expressing judgmentalism about gays, and that’s the limit of what I have to say regarding others’ behavior.
Did that make sense to you? You’ve asked, and I’ve responded, regarding my personal views on the subject. But it is not my place to judge. All I feel that I am permitted to do is to point out how some attitude or action may be contrary to the prime directive of Christianity (wordplay intentional) about who to love and how to love them.
As regards trollism, no, not if you’re asking intelligent questions with a view to getting answers you’ll listen to, as it’s clear you’re doing. The tonality of some posts recently has been, “How in hell can you believe what is clearly stuff made up after the fact and loaded with superstition?” I misread your question on the date of the Gospels with that in mind, erroneously. I’ll ask your forgiveness for doing so, but I trust you can see where someone who does accept the material after due reasoning can feel put upon by blithe assumptions of “blind faith without thought” – which I misread your remarks as implying.
To address the Gospel question, briefly, they were (according to contempory scholarship) written on the basis of oral “tradition” (in the sense of stories carried orally for a few years) based on what were allegedly eyewitness accounts of the events. They were written at a time when eyewitnesses still survived, and in a culture that was able to transmit information more quickly than anything since has been able to do until the spread of the telegraph in the mid-1800s. Obviously, as the Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong has noted, each of them was structured to paint a particular picture of Jesus and his message – but this does not say anything about their content except its selectivity – the stories were so selected and so retold and arranged as to make the point the particular evangelist was looking to make. Any biographer does the same thing. Luke in particular states overtly that he is trying to practice the best historiography of his day. This may not be adequate grounds to accept their historicity to you, but I trust you can see where we can differ intelligently.
Congratulations, you found the topic of the thread.
Not particularly.
Yes. Paul had reason to say what he did in the historical context of the culture he lived in, but it wasn’t a “command from God” or a universal rule that would apply to all cultures. Women no longer have the social status of slaves.
Study the Bible and the writings of the early Church Fathers.
OK, I’m biased, I’m Catholic, but based on my own study of the above, I have arrived that the Catholic Church is the church established by Christ through the Apostles. A smack upside the head for Asmodeus. When the Church speaks of Tradition, it means oral tradition, meaning the oral teachings of the apostles handed down to their disciples. There are many writings of that first generation on Christian Fathers that survive to this day, which prove that many of the Catholic doctrines and dogmas, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which the Protestants find so objectionable, have been part of Christian belief since the first century. Actually, the Bible itself teaches that the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Don’t have time to crack the Bible open and find the proof texts, I’ll post again tonite with those.
Also, the Protestants, since the time of Martin Luther, have been using a version of the Bible that has had seven entire books, plus chapters of several others, deleted from it. The Protestants basically edited Scripture to make it fit their doctrine, rather than drawing their doctrines from Scripture.
Eucharist/True Presence - Not essential in my book, and I even lean towards a less symbolic meaning than many of my Protestant brothers.
Apocrypha/DuetroCanon - seven books canonized by the Council of Trent after Luther tacked up his theses. Seven books that don’t take away from any essential doctrine, but IIRC are used to confirm the doctrine of Purgatory, which Luther was strongly against.
Catholic Tradition - Early Church Fathers are very helpful to understanding tradition, without which we would have a hard time defining the Canon (even the 66 books that we do agree on). Again from a Protestant perspective, the best way to read the ECF is with a Bible in one hand, and with discernment turned on high. Thea Logica, in the last couple of years that I have been active on message boards, some friends and I have compiled a list of ‘[url"http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forum/showthread.php?threadid=29"]Points of Agreement’ with which most denominations affirm. I think the ‘essentials’ is a subset of this list, especially in light of escathological positions. I would ask for your opinion of the points.
It’s clear that you really care about doing the right thing.
The thread asks ‘what denomination or type of theology do you believe to be most accurate?’.
You seem to be saying that we humans are fallible and can’t agree on much more than the central ideas of Christianity (and you posted a link to this information in your reply to Thea Logica).
Is this a fair summary?
I objected, in the essay you cited, to the sudden appearance of the fact of ‘beyondness’ , rather than belief.
I now think the problem may be in the dictionary. I discover that it defines fact as:
thing known to exist
known from experience
verified information
thing assumed as a basis for argument
I don’t like definition 4 personally! (It seems opposed to the other three).
But if that is the definition used in the essay - OK.
I still think it’s a tricky passage. The First Cause is ‘less problematical’, yet is itself ‘un-caused’. So doesn’t the First Cause extend infinitely backward?
Of course this all easily becomes the well-known interchange:
‘Someone must have created the Universe.’
‘Who created the Creator, then?’
Yes, I want to find those answers.
If there is a Creator who designed us to ask them, why is finding the answers so difficult?
I don’t mean that in a flippant way, but surely it’s as valid as the original assumption?
My quotes about the difficulty of some Bible passages came directly from the essay. The author said that any message from God would be clearly written. he then admitted he found that passage (as one example) unclear.
Well you stated you disagree with those groups as well.
(Incidentally I’ve done all the above. I’ve even given a sermon.)
I am certainly not trying to wind you up (or Polycarp).
As I said earlier, I fully respect the majority of Christians.
However I have a serious problem with some of the things the other Christians say. (Gay behaviour is a mortal sin; contraception is wrong, women cannot be priests etc.)
I hoped this thread would make the position clearer. But not so far.
I hasten to add that I am comfortable with your statement about gay priests that ‘I think you are asking us to sit in a seat that is reserved for another.’
But what of those who do condemn? Are they right?
I appreciate your thoughtful points about gay priests. Particularly:
This not only makes sense to me, but seems to exemplify how Jesus was trying to get us to behave.
I thank you for giving your personal views. I hope I’ve made it clear I was asking you and Navigator such things because my fundamentalist friend’s views upset me.
(But I too can ‘hate the sin, not the sinner’, so we’re still friends!)
I don’t know if this is the right thread to discuss the Gospels.
I would query your assertion that they ‘were written at a time when eyewitnesses still survived’, since I thought at least one was dated around 100 years after Jesus.
I can appreciate that someone who has a personal revelation from God can then state that this confirms the Bible.
I don’t personally think the Gospels ** by themselves ** are sufficient evidence to prove Christianity.
Haven’t checked your link yet, but you are wrong about the Deuterocanonicals being canonized at the Council of Trent. They were part of the Alexandrian Canon of the Jewish Bible, which was widely in use at the time of Christ. These books and chapters were deleted from the Palestinian (Hebrew)canon at the Council of Jamnia in 100 AD, because Hebrew originals of the Greek translations could not be found.
The Christian Church continued to use the Alexandrian Canon. The Christian canon of scripture was established at the Council of Hippo, 393 AD, and confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. It included all 46 books of the Alexandrian Canon for the OT.
The Council of Trent did not canononize these scriptures. It simply confirmed, in response to the Protestant Reformer’s rejection of these books, that they were part of Holy Scripture.
(I wonder what a Baptist minister would do if someone came to him to hear their confession.)