|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Theology - beliefs and attitudes?
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Does our theology reflect our deepest beliefs and attitudes or is it something a little removed from them?
This comment by Eutychus is what got me thinking.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Repeating myself, for which I apologise, but:
quote:
Especially in our current culture, identity is the all-powerful factor that maddeningly frequently decides everything. "I am ..... therefore I do/think/say .......". Independent thought has become treason. Among other things, it's why this place has become as unrestful as a bathtub with no bather in it.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I said quote:
It's just that their theology hasn't caught up with their day-to-day attitudes
I posted, read that, and wanted to edit it, but the edit window had gone, so I settled for hoping somebody would pick up on it. I didn't have to wait long ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I wanted to edit it to say "the more complex parts of their theology".
I think most Christians have got the hang of, to quote Saint Adrian Plass, quote:
God is nice and he likes you
or to quote John Arnott quote:
God: good
Devil: bad
or to quote Douglas Adams quote:
One man ... nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change
However, I believe that the way God works in those who seek to follow Christ is not first and foremost by putting them through a systematic theology course but by the Spirit indwelling them (in this sense, as I have said before here, I am and remain a charismatic).
Other things being equal, the Spirit produces fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, etc. This, and not first and foremost a series of doctrinal propositions or ticked boxes, is what is supposed to characterise believers.
Since we are called to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, it's only natural that with the Spirit dwelling within us we should start to try and work through the implications of the changes in attitude that is supposed to bring on.
Indeed, it was on the Ship that I gained the insight that the Acts and Epistles are a record of the first Christians trying to do precisely that - with varying degrees of success.
Those same Scriptures contain a narrative of people (whose lives had, reportedly, been transformed for the better, but who had got little further theologically than "Christ is risen!") having their assumptions about what else they ought to believe (largely based on the Law) challenged by the Spirit, arguing about what that challenge meant, what should be clarified as a result, and how that should work out in practice.
I am thinking of course first and foremost of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15: I consider this and the events that led up to it to be one of the most crucial parts of the Bible.
I can't remember who made the post many years ago now that gave me the insight referred to above, but it concluded along the lines of "that argument is still going on: today we call it the Church".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
excellent. I'll have a look at it again later, but it has provoked a positive emotional response in me. It's a call to prayer.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I think attitudes are very important. So when people ask me why I am a Christian I always say there are two questions:
1. What is it about me that draws me to religion. This has been a constant, and even though I was brought up as a JW from the age of ten, it is fair to say that even at that age, it fascinated me.
2. What would be the reasons why this particular variety of religion is what I think the best one to follow.
But a lot is attitudes and ingrained habits of mind. And when I think of those JW beliefs and practices that have continued to influence me, I realise it is because they chime in with aspects of my nature. Like scepticism about politics (now abated but still there), a rather rationalist approach to faith and a belief that it is helpful and certainly not sinful to judge (our ideas about) God by human standards of fairness and justice (aka clay arguing with potter).
Of course most of it was bullshit.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Theology is just me trying to give a coherent account of that which I encounter that I consider to be God.
I try to be as honest as I can. Yes, I find the resources from the great Traditions of the Faith useful to think on when I try to express it.
Equally, I try to live my life in response to that encounter. Trying to give a coherent account helps me do this but I do not wait until my theology is sorted before I try to respond.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Does our theology reflect our deepest beliefs and attitudes or is it something a little removed from them?
A clarification question; are you asking whether people are attracted to theologies because of their deepest beliefs and attitudes? Or something else entirely?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
I think I was very lucky that my childhood religious experiences took place in a church/denomination that suited my personality. The Presbyterian Chruch of New Zealand (as it then was in the 1960 and early 70's). Even though I was constantly disappointed by the "Sunday reality" I felt at home with what they they said they were on about and thought theologically. And what I read into that behind the words and between the lines. So I stuck with it till I was old enough to be independent of my family and found another church that reflected my social justice (well, liberation) concerns better. And also discovered the High Anglicans (and the gin) ...both to my great joy.
Naturally I moved "on" a bit over the next 4 decades but I know that I'd have been much worse off with another denomination as a child. I might even have chucked the whole thing altogether. Personally, I think I am neurologically wired for religion so that would have been disasterous as I'd have found myself either in a "cult" or completely lacking in a dimension of life that is so basic to my being
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Does our theology reflect our deepest beliefs and attitudes or is it something a little removed from them?
A clarification question; are you asking whether people are attracted to theologies because of their deepest beliefs and attitudes? Or something else entirely?
Yes, and I am also asking ...
If those deep beliefs and attitudes change (as in the example Eutychus gave here ) does it 'take time for their theology to catch up with their day-to-day attitudes'?
here
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think of theology as something you can do. It's the activity we can do of thinking about our beliefs, attitudes and experiences and relating them to each other, to the ideas and stories of others, to scripture, to art, to worship and whatever seems relevant. The process might leave you with changed beliefs and attitudes. It's a process that is best when shared.
When we talk about a person's theology, that isn't some fixed position. We mean that this person always tends to relate all their thinking about God to the Sermon on the Mount, that person always goes back to Paul and sin and grace, another person relates everything to their sense of the beauty of worship. Of course they can all do all of these and more, but they have a set of important questions and convictions that is characteristic of them, and that is what they bring to the process of theology.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Does our theology reflect our deepest beliefs and attitudes or is it something a little removed from them?
I think of theology as a system of beliefs and attitudes, which I either accept and adhere to or not.
As it is, I adore the system I belong to, and see it as pure genius.
But I definitely see it as a little removed from me and existing apart from me. It is not something that I can change. I can only modify my understanding and acceptance of it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
A clarification question; are you asking whether people are attracted to theologies because of their deepest beliefs and attitudes? Or something else entirely?
Yes, and I am also asking ...
If those deep beliefs and attitudes change (as in the example Eutychus gave here ) does it 'take time for their theology to catch up with their day-to-day attitudes'?
here
So if that's yes to my first question; then I suspect that most people aren't consciously theological much of the time, and personality types are much more likely to align to the stylistics of church life (either expected content of the service, worship, choice and mix of activities and so on). I'm sure when it comes down to what they are comfortable with vs what the official teachings of the church are, then at least some people are mentally crossing their fingers (see RCCers on contraceptive use).
In terms of a more visible dissonance; there will be people who exhibit it without necessarily being aware of it. The parallel that I would see is with older people who often have very jaundiced racial opinions, but who act differently towards members of their own connected family.
What Eutychus describes seems to me to be the category of people who are aware of the dissonance and consciously struggling/wrestling with it. In my experience, this is the smallest category of people
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I suspect that most people aren't consciously theological much of the time, and personality types are much more likely to align to the stylistics of church life.
Yes, I agree pretty much with that: in another post I want on to say quote:
Of course there are communities that can and do deliberately reject or demean... [x, y, z] But there are many others in which the rank and file are simply good folks with some unexamined prejudices.
quote:
What Eutychus describes seems to me to be the category of people who are aware of the dissonance and consciously struggling/wrestling with it. In my experience, this is the smallest category of people
But probably over-represented on the Ship ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think of theology as something you can do. It's the activity we can do of thinking about our beliefs, attitudes and experiences and relating them to each other, to the ideas and stories of others, to scripture, to art, to worship and whatever seems relevant. The process might leave you with changed beliefs and attitudes. It's a process that is best when shared.
When we talk about a person's theology, that isn't some fixed position.
I think what you describe is the ideal, not the practical reality of most people most of the time. Most people are born into a religion/faith position, receive whatever instruction/indoctrination typical for that state and continue on without much modification. Those who do change radically settle into the same with their new position.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So if that's yes to my first question; then I suspect that most people aren't consciously theological much of the time,
I would expand this to most people are not conscious of any of their systems of belief most of the time. And when they are, emotion trumps reason.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
A whole range of circumstances impact on people's beliefs and theology. Upbringing is only one.
If upbringing were the long and short of it then we would all share the exact same theology of our ancestors. This patently isn't so. Indeed, the extent to which our religious beliefs have changed in the UK over the past century (give or take a few decades) strikes me as pretty astonishing.
Faith transmission is now relatively weak, and fewer than half of us even call ourselves Christians now. But among those of us who still do, the content of our faith is likely to have diverged significantly from what our ancestors believed.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
lilBuddha said quote:
I think what you describe is the ideal, not the practical reality of most people most of the time. Most people are born into a religion/faith position, receive whatever instruction/indoctrination typical for that state and continue on without much modification. Those who do change radically settle into the same with their new position.
Most, perhaps, though it's a depressing estimate. Plenty of people do change their beliefs, quite a few shift step by step, and for some change becomes a lifelong practice.
If only more churches encouraged the expectation of change, the sense that theology is this dangerous but exciting thing and that faith is a risky journey. We have become dominated by the switch flicking idea, unbeliever - Christian - atheist - saved - on - off - in - out. There's not much in between, so shifting is drastic and scary, and there's no sense of progress. If you're saved, why grow in faith or understanding? You just risk losing it all.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
A whole range of circumstances impact on people's beliefs and theology. Upbringing is only one.
Yes, there can be multiple factors. I did not ignore this, but thought it too much a distraction from the main point: People rarely examine belief.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Most, perhaps, though it's a depressing estimate.
Tell me about it.
quote:
Plenty of people do change their beliefs, quite a few shift step by step, and for some change becomes a lifelong practice.
Yes, there are many people who do change their beliefs and their may be a sizeable number who consistently think about them, But nowhere near most.
quote:
If you're saved, why grow in faith or understanding? You just risk losing it all.
I HATE the "saved" rubbish. At least in the "I'm Saved and I'm done" sense. If a person thinks in this way, they have lost it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People rarely examine belief.
[...]
Yes, there are many people who do change their beliefs and their may be a sizeable number who consistently think about them. But nowhere near most.
I suppose that if you come from a long line of Anglicans, as many English people presume they do, the culturally 'correct' behaviour is not to give religion much thought at all. The right sort of English religion knows its place and remains static. Shifting too much in any particular direction isn't proper.
But the research seems to show that a huge amount of change has gone on, especially in Western contexts. Perhaps change is easier for Christian immigrant communities to be aware of, because they're forced to compare how faith is lived here with how it's lived in their homelands, and it becomes clear to them that faith serves different purposes for different kinds of people. Their own situation changes with migration, and this impacts on their religiosity.
However, British sociologists often posit religious change in general as rather subtle and gradual. Most individuals don't switch from being devout believers to being ardent atheists, or vice versa (and certainly not overnight), so if you're measuring everything against that dramatic yardstick then I suppose it looks as if nothing's really happening.
[ 04. June 2017, 20:56: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
British sociologists often posit religious change in general as rather subtle and gradual.
Discipleship is a coded phrase. Following Jesus is a learning process. Beliefs, attitudes, behaviour change in the following journey.
I appreciate the comments from those re "born again". My own take on that is best expressed by the great theologian Bob Dylan, in the following terms.
"He who is not busy being born is busy dying".
I'm still busy being born. If you don't go through life wearing "L" plates you may overestimate yourself. Which is not a good thing.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Does our theology reflect our deepest beliefs and attitudes or is it something a little removed from them?
I think that both our deepest beliefs and attitudes AND our theologies are primarily results of our narrative frameworks.
It's not that the theology is a result of our deep beliefs, it's that both are results of the stories that we cling to, resonate with and retell. This is why Jesus told stories more than he taught beliefs - especially in public. Teaching is much less likely to influence someone's paradigm than a new story is.
As an example:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I HATE the "saved" rubbish. At least in the "I'm Saved and I'm done" sense. If a person thinks in this way, they have lost it.
I totally agree. The unhelpful theology & attitude/belief both come from an unhelpful narrative, which ultimately excludes and separates, and is not Gospel.
I've heard it said that we don't have personality clashes; we have value clashes. But those value clashes themselves are narrative clashes. The 'story' behind your values conflicts with the story behind my values, and we can't reconcile that.
To extend that example: there is a theological belief that we don't need to care for the world, because ultimately the saved will "go up to heaven" and the world will be destroyed anyhow. So, we have an attitude that says "why care about ecology?". But both the attitude and the theology come out a story that is told about creation, that says that God created the universe; it got screwed up; Jesus saves the repentant; one day he'll return and destroy the world and the saved will go up to heaven.
There is no way that you'll affect the unhelpful attitudes and theologies that result from this unless you first challenge the story. Is that story accurate? Is it really scriptural? What does it say about God, and people?
If we want to have get our attitudes & theologies right then we need to examine the narratives we tell ourselves.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
Having rejected top down theology at adolescence, my religious convictions had to be built from the bottom up. This began with the rejection of materialist metaphysics (the hard problem of consciousness, the lack of parsimony in multiverse theory, the adversarial polemics of new atheism, etc), and concluded with the religion of my childhood as an imperfect but eminently workable reflection of reality. So it wasn't so much a reluctant letting go of insupportable dogma, as a wholesale abandonment of all and any metaphysics, replaced by a slow submission to the unavoidable.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Welcome to you romanesque.
Could you explain 'materialist metaphysics'?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
By materialist metaphysics I mean the difference between science the method of observation about the material world, and the physicalist ideology that says matter exhausts all and any possible models of reality - along with a bunch of unprovable and promissory dogma about what constitutes the "real".
For example if you ask a materialist how consciousness emerges from unconscious matter, they'll say by the process of conscious emergence. This is one of many placeholders for a scientific explanation, a kind of permanent deferral of anything resembling a genuinely scientific explanation, but is nevertheless taken on as a perfectly valid way of looking at things.
Hope that helps.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
So, assuming there is a scientific explanation for everything - even if it hasn't been found yet?
I think this has probably been true of most things (except God imo). As science progresses more 'unknowables' are known.
I can't hold a theology I don't understand. So I think my views may be the polar opposite of yours
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
People often claim to understand science without the faintest clue as to the nature of prime causes, ontological primitives, or the nature of consciousness itself. I'd have thought the massive redundancy of intellect and emotion over the basic necessities for survival, or an explanation for why the brain isn't like any of the other bio-mechanical organs in the body might offer them pause for thought. That's before we get to the materialist prejudice against anything that isn't, er, material. Philosophically, I'd say Idealism (and possibly Panpsychism) offer a far more authentic reflection of how reality feels than materialism, and as there's no higher appeal that the conscious observer it's impossible to remove them from models of reality (as quantum physics reminds us).
What philosophical materialists actually mean is something akin to primitive realism, an impermeable world of the manifest.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
To add to the above comment post tea break: once I became convinced by Idealism (the philosophical position that consciousness not matter is primary), theology, especially Christian theology, became a more authentic reflection of the human condition than biological robotics, epiphenomenal consciousness, and the amoral accidental universe materialists were promoting. It allowed for emotions I felt to be objectively real and of fundamental importance, not figments of my illusory imagination. In short, a pointless, directionless universe was less logically coherent than one in which conscious awareness actually mattered. Clearly that won't lead everyone to the same theological conclusions, but it made the abandonment of physicalism utterly unavoidable.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
romanesque may be trying to say - not sure - that scientists have invented their own "pagan" form of religion in that since they reject a personal God at all costs, they have basically gotten into a philosophical construction of reality that is only labeled with science.
So, having rejected the theological construct of his youth, and the "theological" construct of his education, he has found himself back at the start, searching for the truth within the theosophy stemming out of the narrative of early human history (I think the Biblical one).
He's walking with God. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's not that the theology is a result of our deep beliefs, it's that both are results of the stories that we cling to, resonate with and retell. This is why Jesus told stories more than he taught beliefs - especially in public. Teaching is much less likely to influence someone's paradigm than a new story is.
I agree. Though not understanding that premise has caused all manner of trouble.
quote:
I've heard it said that we don't have personality clashes; we have value clashes. But those value clashes themselves are narrative clashes. The 'story' behind your values conflicts with the story behind my values, and we can't reconcile that.
Whilst I'd argue that personality clashes do indeed exist, I think this statement works well for group behaviour. Certain helps explain voting as well as religion. IMO, when the underlying narrative clashes with reason, the former dominates. Often to the extent of otherwise rational people defending irrational positions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
As to the issue of the theologies we hold dear, I think the OP is right on. If we hold to a theology, it is because that theology explains how we feel and see the world.
But often we only see theology as being the "best" explanation yet offered. Most people I think would subconsciously know that they have gaps in their theology and try to fill them as they go.
The thing being gotten at in the quote is more nuanced than that.
It appears that the idea being thrown forward is that the social context for which people feel approved of by others, is what should be driving correct theology.
If we don't come to hold a theology with real conviction, but accept it as having holes, then social tides will wash it away and replace it. The sand castle begins again.
Ever started a sand castle too close to water, and yet continued to build it for the fun of it?
Yes indeed, we create theologies to give our feelings a sense of purpose.
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
Aijalon, I certainly think material science is prejudiced against God, and suspect I'm equally unimpressed by the deity such people are offering as the only variety on offer. Science is blameless, it's simply a method of observing repeated phenomena, it's the ideology people invest the pursuit in, and the infinite promise and polemics it comes with.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
This is turning out to be a tread very close to my current spiritual place.
chris stiles wrote:
quote:
What Eutychus describes seems to me to be in the category of people who are aware of the dissonance and consciously struggling/wrestling with it.
anteater asks two questions I identify with very much:
quote:
1. What is it about me that draws me to religion. This has been a constant
2. What would be the reasons why this particular variety of religion is what I think the best one to follow.
Yesterday, Pentecost Sunday, right after the sermon, the rector invited us to pray silently for the Spirit to tell us what God wants for us and from us.
This was a highly unusual request, since Episcopal services here rarely leave any time at all for anything silent. Ordinarily, words rule the liturgy -- telling God things rather than opening ourselves to something we might not expect or want to hear.
The response I received to my prayer -- if I can call it a "response" -- was simply to open myself to the Spirit and to be ready to listen. This was not awfully dramatic on the face to it, maybe even banal. But it was deeply moving in relation to my current spiritual malaise.
I would love to have remained in that silence for a long while, but we moved on rather quickly to the liturgy. Which just happened to be The Creed. Here we tell God and each other what "we" believe in great detail.
I no longer recite the Creed because there are so many parts of it that I either do not believe, want to question, or find superfluous. Perhaps having been a child during the days of enforced loyalty oaths and pledges has something to do with it. My own image of theology -- which I have studied and used to love to read if only for the curiousness of much of it -- is of a coral reef. This particular reef has been burdened by the accumulation of all sorts of other sea life (mixed with various pollutants) until the reef itself seems to disappear. I have often felt guilty about these thoughts and do not share them in church.
I'm struck by something Eutychus posted:
quote:
Other things being equal, the Spirit produces fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, etc. This, and not first and foremost a series of doctrinal propositions or ticked boxes, is what is supposed to characterize believers.
I am far from being a charismatic by nature, but this is something I will be thinking about for a long time.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
roybart. I can relate.
Ya know, it's funny. I could not see it until I really grew up and tested it all out for myself, but so much of the old doctrine I grew up actually REINFORCES fear and anxiety.
Without starting a sidetrail hopefully - one such theology is the idea that everything is God's will, and therefore all the bad stuff in our life is working toward some higher purpose. This leaves folks in a malaise about the purpose of life, and they soldier in on sadness and depression, as if it were a badge of honor.
[ 05. June 2017, 17:01: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
