I am male. Thank you, this thread was very helpful in understanding a Christian faith without Biblical inerrancy.
Tris, Poly, Lib:
I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian by my parents. They’re better now and freely and apologeticly admit that it was responsible for quite a lot of the problems that made me a lonely and strange kid in elementary school and junior high.
As a result of having seen dozens of churches all promising they had the Real Thing, I have a lot of trouble taking any religion seriously. On the other hand, I have more than a handful of events in my life where I know I was connected to G-d.
So I’ve been forced to try and forge my own independent belief system that I can find satisfactorily explains the world and G-d as I know both of them. It’s not easy, but you three and people like you have been tremendous role models for me ever since I found this board. Thank you.
–John
[Off Topic to Lib: I’m sorry I had harsh words for you in the Pit recently. I had my concerns as to if the Board is good for you, I have always respected you and known that you are good for the Board. Recent events have led me to feel I am not in any position to judge anybody so, I apologize.]
Arggh…
was meant to be
You hold a special place in my heart, John, as I told you a long time ago. I see you as the standard of excellence to which all young people should aspire. I accept your apology, and appreciate your offering it more than I can express. Peace, my brother, and God go with you always.
Ignoring for the present the apology given and received, I’d like to just give a hearty “amen” to Lib.'s answer to you, John. If half the alleged “adults” in this nation had your maturity and wisdom, we would be a much better and stronger nation.
Does no one else find this a bit presumptuous? Isn’t the royal “we” a bit over the top? At that point in the discussion, no one else had made such a claim, so he could not we referring to anyone else. More to the point, doesn’t it suggest a rather unfounded and overarching implicit assumption?
I respect your beliefs, Libertarian, but you have you really “shown” us anything? You have merely made assertions. Interesting assertions to be sure, but assertions just the same. Assertions founded on rather unconvincing grounds and no reliable objective evidence (a fault I suspect you could care less about). No one could find your formulation in the least persuasive except those already inclined to think as you do.
Libertarian also wrote:
Was this a sincere statement, Lib? Are you claiming that God actually spoke to you directly? I ask merely for information.
I find myself in agreement with the words, if not necessarily the intent, of telechus, who writes: “Libertarian takes the idea/concept of agape and God as axiomatic. When a person speaks with that concept in mind, or shows it in deed, he is proclaiming the message of God. When he does not, he isn’t proclaiming anything truly relevant.”
This reveals that Lib’s ideological assertions thus seems to constitute a non-falsifiable belief system that “magically” converts anyone to Christianity when they speak lovingly and just as “magically” ejects people from Christianity when they don’t. How many times a day do you alternate between being a Christian to being a non-Christian, Lib?
If I were to tell you sincerely that I love you, would that make me a Christian? For how long afterwards? Until I said something non-loving?
I would very much like to have your answers on these fascinating but perplexing questions.
Ambushed,
This is merely to let you know that I won’t sully McStain’s thread by being suckered into your hijack of it. If you have a problem with me, or wish to debate, why not behave like a gentleman and start your own thread?
Ambushed:
It seems to me that Libertarian asked what his own personal faith was and why, and that he answered it in detail.
Asking someone to provide citations for their own faith seems to be a tad rude.
I appreciate Libertarian’s thoughfulness on this. That may be colored by the fact that I also agree with most of it. 1 John 4: 7-8 is the core of my faith. I don’t understand evil in the world, but love is worthy of our faith.
The epistles of Paul need to be read with the knowledge that they were sent to specific congregations experiencing specific problems. And while Paul was supremely confident he was writing the correct thing, I can’t recall that he claimed God was dictating to him, but rather that his advice flowed from his faith. Paul’s poor understanding of sexuality needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Certainly promiscuity is greatly damaging to love and faith, but Paul sometimes seems to overstate his case with respect to human sexuality (stuff like not having sexual thoughts at all). And that may be due to the fact that we do not directly see what he is responding too.
So much to reply to, and so little time.
I have been doing artwork feverishly for the last two days, and have not kept up. Here is a stream of conscious effort to respond to the thread to date since my last post.
Q: If the Bible is not the Word of God, literal and accurate, how can it be of use? (Paraphrase, and a bad one, I admit.)
A: It’s a freakin’ miracle! Doesn’t make a bit of sense that it does. It has only the most tenuous trail for even so dedicated a scholar as our esteemed Poly and Lib to follow, and precious little reward in terms of authoritative conclusions for your time. Mostly what true scholars of the Bible do is argue. But in between the arguments, and underneath all the division and sectarian squabbling, you have to decide for yourself. So you read it, and then think about it, and then live your life. Out there in the world you meet people who do things you suddenly realize were just exactly what Jesus said you should be doing. You find out that the real meaning of the Bible is not in the words on the page, but in the trip to the grocery store. I have no clue why the Bible has the history it does. I don’t think it could be as perfect as some claim it is, yet have so many variations in its text over history and geography. Personally I think it really is a miracle, every single time, and I think the reason is; that’s what it takes. Making some jaded old sinner into an eternal font of love is tough to do. Fortunately, we have an Expert on the job, and like most experts, He doesn’t read the manual anymore.
Poly, and Lib:
I lean upon you, my brothers. My impassioned ranting would soon be utterly pointless, were it not for your calm and reasoned discourses.
Ambushed:
You want proof. You want to see evidence of a certain type, with a reasonable level of admissibility to skeptical examination. You desire logically referent explanations of each step of revelation. You want a God you can understand. You are seeking a paradox. Having decided there can be no God; you seek proof that he cannot be. That search too, is fruitless. And you should be grateful that it is. For if you found what you sought, either a God no bigger than your head, or a void in a space clearly marked “God”, it would destroy you. You will be better served to ignore god, religion, or even philosophy, and seek only human beings.
You don’t need religion. You can’t get away from God. Just do your very best to be the person that a good and kind and loving God would want you to be, if he did exist, because doing so is a good idea, even if there is no god. Love itself is enough reason to dedicate your entire life to being a prophet of Love.
Being logically correct, or philosophically right, is a small reward for living a life. Being loved and loving are greater than kingdoms, and finer than gold. All this, and Heaven too.
Tris
“If I had something controversial to say, I could have put in quotes, and attributed it to someone you can’t argue with.” ~ me ~
I am simply in awe of Polycarp. You, Poly, are in all positive aspects of the word, a stud. My hat is humbly off.
I didn’t ask for those things!
I only asked for an explanation of whether or not Lib would stick to his personal definition of “Christianity” that implies that one automatically becomes a Christian whenever one expresses genuine love and automatically ceases to be a Christian if one expresses an emotion other than love.
Can you folks accept a definition of “Christianity” that, as several Protestant theologians have unwittingly proposed in the mid 20’th century, automatically makes everyone a Christian by verbal fiat?
For that is what Lib’s definition does! What use is that?
Lib, I really don’t get it. How in the bleeding blue blazes can you mix Objectivism with Christianity? Ayn Rand and the Boss? That’s like Hitler and Ghandi, we’re talking thermonuclear oxymoron here. Are you sure this isn’t something you just say at Mensa parties to impress chicks?
I mean, like half Godzilla, half-Big Bird. Half Charles Bronson, half Ru Paul.
I just wanted to point out that, at least in this thread, all I was asking for was a reasonable explanation of Lib’s beliefs. I wasn’t demanding that it be logically consistent, or completely fleshed out, or prepared for argument. I don’t really think it’s fair to take whatever he said in this thread and use it in some sort of philosophical warfare, because, really, he was just politely trying to clear some things up for a person completely unqualified on the subject. So please, be nice.
In semi-Christian love,
Chris.
I don’t go to Mensa parties. I go to TOPS parties, where we make fun of Mensa. 
Objectivism and Christianity blend perfectly when you accept the essences and throw out the baggage of both. Let me give you an example: the Objectivist ethic of self-interest. For a long time (I was a Christian before I was an Objectivist) there was something about Christian ethics that bothered me, namely, if I am to be completely selfless, then by what ethical principle do I accept my own salvation?
Objectivism settled this paradox for me in a way that I found to be both intellectually and spiritually satisfying. If my heart is a vessel that houses God’s own Spirit, then I must acceed to God’s own ethic and employ His moral imperative to “Be perfect”. Thus, I am God, and have been instructed to put first His kingdom and His righteousness. It is in my own self-interest to accept my salvation.
In review:
Love in this context is not an utterance grunted by an animal; it is not a brain-fart emotion; it is not a mere concept: “Love is alive!!! God’s love is a living thing! It is God Himself.”
I don’t suppose you want to answer my simple and inoffensive question, do you? Feel free, of course, to ignore it. The question remains…
Ambushed:
Sorry my prose was overwrought last time.
Your restatement of the question is to explain “agape” ah-gop-a love, as distinguished from erotic love (eros). We are not talking about eros. Frankly this takes a lifetime of practice, but is well worth it. I’ll take a stab at a written explanation, but it really is the ultimate mystery of the Christian religion and promise of it. Remember brotherly love? Phillia? And there is also love between parents and children, which is fiercely biological, like eros.
Agape is a gracious love. Completely undeserved, kinda like what Mrs. Wilson felt for Dennis the Menace.
The beginning of understanding it is to love your enemy. That doesn’t mean love his/her actions, but to love them as a human being. To cease hating. Psychologically, hatred is arrested anger, which is born of a fear to your Maslow hierarchy of needs. For example, you hate your boss because he/she blames his failures on you. You are as a Christian nonetheless called upon to love your boss, to give up your hatred. How? See boss as a human being who is indulging his improper impulse for the purpose of protecting himself or advancing himself: he is sinning. But he is not the sin itself. By understanding his motive, you can move past the sin (and don’t get hung up on the Falwell fallacy of hating the sin but loving the sinner, the sin is between boss and God). You move past the sin by always seeing boss as a human being deserving of having someone love him/her, much as you would love an errant child or sibling. (This all has nothing to do with being a doormat, you may have to take action to protect yourself, but that is another matter we don’t have time to deal with.)
By understanding boss’s motive and base desire, but loving boss anyway, you become less blind to the consequences of your own thoughts and actions and how they affect others. After all, you might be tempted (but not give in) in the same position. The fact that you would never do such a thing doesn’t make inhuman the desire to shift blame.
If you can love your boss (and others) because you see who they really are and leave their sins to them and God, you will also be able to appreciate how your own thoughts and actions that might hurt others are natural protective mechanisms that you are tempted to use to protect your fundamental needs. You, hopefully, get a little distance on whether you must give in, or are just tempted.
This will enable you to understand that your behavior is also separate from you. If you are able to avoid passing judgment of hatred on boss, who has wronged you, you will certainly be able to avoid passing judgment of hatred on yourself. Moreover, God promises real forgiveness for your repentence. If you consistently practice this, you will be able to love yourself, because you have no problem loving imperfect people, people who sin, people who are tempted to sin, people who cannot bear to sin. Ultimately, if God forgives you the sins of pride, etc., and actually loves you, who are you to disagree?
This very much follows the teachings of John. (Incidentally, the NIV comes in a number of editions with varying degrees of annotation. One of them has a long and scholarly introduction to each book describing the theories on who was the actual scribe either by tradition or scholarly theory and when they were written.) Again, I would emphasize that Paul was writing to specific congregations about their internal problems. Most Protestants put enormous emphasis on Pauline doctrine. It never did all that much for me. I found it much to lawyerly (ah the irony, considering that he is my middle namesake too).
Libertarian - I just wanted to give you props for your time spent online clarifying for the world what Christians believe and showing it in a practical, inviting light. I also like your integration of Christianity into a lifestyle - something we should all do. It’s more than just a belief because if we truly believe we will apply its principles to all of life. True, basic Christianity can offer a foundation and comfort in this life, unmatched by any belief system or philosophy.
Jep,
I have no idea what props are, but thanks all the same.
Ambushed,
You asked a complex question whose particulars I explained in some detail. God’s perfect love and “verbal fiat” have as much to do with one another as urinary infections and the Starship Enterprise.