sneak into the sheep's pen when no-ones looking?)
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
In short. I agree.
(Wonder if it's going to be possible to
sneak into the sheep's pen when no-ones looking?)
quote:
My point is this. Whilst you guys are debating the finer points of theology (and TULIP is Calvinism, only part of the reformation, and the reformation is only part of Christianity), and setting up doctrinal boundaries (which you can't agree on), the world moves on, looks on Christianity with disdain, and looks elsewhere. It seems to me that you equate your own brand of fundamentalist Calvinism with Christianity; so any other theological position is heresy, and equate yourself with the font of all knowledge explaining what we poor heretics are too stupid, too godless or too lacking in Biblical knowledge to understand for ourselves.First it was theistic evolutionists who were beyond your pale. Now we find it's anyone with a whiff of Arminian theology. Who next?
That's me. Spleen vented. Better things to move on to.
(my second choice of .sig would be :
religion is for people who don't want to go to hell. spirituality is for those who have been there and don't want to go back.)
And preach it, brother Karl!
[I}(your link doesn't work, however - where'd you say this?)[/I]
I've always felt that (as I've mentioned in the Moby & Bono thread) we'll be pretty surprised at who is (or isn't) in Heaven (should we make it there ourselves). Way beyond muttering 4 spiritual laws or somesuch.
I can't define what salvation is, cos I do believe that there's only one person that can decide that. And it' not me.
fs
The introduction to the Athanasian Creed says that unless you wholeheartedly believe every clause of the creed you will "without doubt perish everlastingly". Makes God seem fairly petty.
Of course, you do realize we're all hanging out in Hell, dont' you?
~Elizabeth, having just voiced an opinion in Purgatory on the existence of same
Some of you, at least, appear to be missing the point about the creeds. They are not the foundation of the faith per se, but rather a summary of what God has chosen to reveal to us throughout the ages, culminating with the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ. Has there been subsequent revelation? Yes, of course. Has there been any more significant revelation? Not a chance in hell. You can NOT get any more substantial revelation of God than God entering into our time and space.
However, as I said, the creeds are a formulation of what God has chosen to reveal to us. They are the quickest and most efficient way of pointing to God, who is and should always be the rock of our faith. They are a shorthand, if you will, of the collective teachings of those who've encountered God, in all the Persons, throughout time.
And the church has been THE primary witness to God throughout the ages. If you are going to dismiss teachings on things that you don't like simply because you think it's placing more hoops in place, I would just point out that scripture was gathered and decided upon by these very same people, so you need to pitch that, too. In which case you are left with absolutely nothing witnessing to Jesus' life, death and resurrection.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
...And the church has been THE primary witness to God throughout the ages. If you are going to dismiss teachings on things that you don't like simply because you think it's placing more hoops in place, I would just point out that scripture was gathered and decided upon by these very same people, so you need to pitch that, too. In which case you are left with absolutely nothing witnessing to Jesus' life, death and resurrection.
Sorry Erin. We can disagree with the creeds but still maintain a belief in the witness of scripture.
Simply because we may believe that the creeds misrepresent that witness. I'm not saying that I necessarily think this is the case, I just needed to point out the non sequiter.
(Now taking bets as to how quickly this ends up in Purgatory...)
[edited because something is wrong with my keyboard, and dammit this is one of the perks of putting in all this time]
[ 01 June 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
and after you know then a book or a creed will not change what you know.
"The church has been THE primary witness to God throughout the ages."
HUH?! I would say that the church has been conspicuously absent for most of the ages, and there are still plenty of places where it isn't the primary witness to God (IMHO).
I'm still waiting for someone to answer Erin's question "What do you need saving from?"
And finally, just whose interpretation of the Creed reflects the real truth of God's message? Yours? The Pope's? Mine? When I get to the "...look forward to the resurrection and the life of the world to come." I always mentally add "Of course, everybody, what do you think we're doing right now!"
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
no, it's based on knowing.
You still haven't answered the question, so I will repeat it: HOW DO YOU KNOW? Did Jesus come to you and say "well, Nicole, here I am, and these are all the things you need to know about me, and btw, you need saving"? Or did you maybe pick up just the teensiest bit of knowledge of Jesus from -- gasp! -- the church, whose teachings on God and Jesus are summed up in the creeds?
JLG...
Let me rephrase then, to make it a little simpler. The church began long before the ICR, it began with the formation of the Jewish religion. The Jewish history is our history, too, since Christianity was originally a Jewish sect. The church militant, aka the earthly members of the communion of saints, has always been the witness to God.
Also, I grew up going to Catholic school, and even though my theology is decidedly not Roman Catholic, I would say that the pope and I probably interpret the creeds about the same.
"How do you know Jesus is your Saviour? And what do you need saving from?"
Well, we need saving from ourselves and the complete lack of any kind of morality that mankind is so good at showing, given half a chance.
And how do we know? Simple answer is that at some point that somebody has told us. Without the witness of the church and without Christian teaching how would any of us even be aware of it today?
But that does not mean that the Church has got it all completely right over the years and every branch of every denomination is guilty of, at some time, choosing its one little bit of scripture to use as doctrine . . .
KevT.
The creeds as 'this is what we believe in a nutshell' - great.
The creeds as 'this is what you have to believe or else' - I have a problem.
The creeds may define Christianity but I do not think they define a Christian. Semantics? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I do think that Athanasius was wrong to start with 'Quiquunque vult...' even if what he said we should believe was correct... it too much smacks of salvation by theology. St Peter at the pearly gates checking us up against Calvin's Institutes
Isn't this getting potentially Purgatorial?
quote:
Isn't this getting potentially Purgatorial?
Yes and no. There's something that will probably be dealt with down here, then we'll see.
quote:
Originally posted by Will:
Erin,
You sound more lawful than most Jews. Did not Paul preach fervently against this? Therefore do not "creeds" and such go directly against this?
Hmmmm... this is interesting. Because I, having gone back through to reread my posts, have not found a single law in any of them. So perhaps you can provide a cite or two to back up your accusation.
I am also extraordinarily interested in how you arrived at the conclusion that a creed, in and of itself, is "law". Basically, in essence, your post says that a summary of belief is law. I have not heard that one before.
(hm, which translation shall I choose today?)
"So you will be saved, if you honestly say, 'Jesus is Lord', and if you believe with all your heart that God raised him from death."
Actually there are plenty of other bits of Scripture that impose other conditions or requirements, and they do NOT all add up, to be frank - because I don't honestly think God wanted to give us any absolute means to judge our fellow man. Look at how prescriptive we get even with what he did give us!
Ian
...because I don't honestly think God wanted to give us any absolute means to judge our fellow man. Look at how prescriptive we get even with what he did give us!
How do other's know they are saved?
TC ...
Um, I don't think you can make that statement definitively really. Kind of limits God don't you think. If no one spoke, the rocks would [my paraphrase]. I don't deny the important of the church but that is not the only place / way God works.
TC ...
Now, someone tell me how you find out about Jesus. Not some touchy-feely warm fuzzy New Age "God is love, the beauty of the stars tells me so" thing, tell me how you know about this man Jesus. How you know his nature, how you know he lived, how you know ANYTHING about him.
And I don't mean touchy-feely warm fuzzy New Age "God is love, the beauty of the stars tells me so" . I mean really know it was the God of the Universe. As a first encounter, why not? You can put structure around the experience and ground them in right doctrine then but it doesn't always go the first way.
TC ...
TC ...
Again, though, my question remains: how do you know about Jesus? I don't mean being aware of the existence of God, I mean how do you know about Jesus as a person? How do you know he is The Answer? How are you even aware that he might be?
OK, now, how do people know about Jesus beyond the existence of God. Don't know. BUT if God wanted to touch somebody who had to access to church / doctrine / creed etc. etc. could he not make Jesus apparent to them somehow?
i'll have a more detailed comment for this discussion later, after i've hada chance to think a bit.
i don't think you want to ask "how do you know", because thats a fundimentally unanswerable question, except by philosophers in airy realms i've never ascended to except for philosophy 101 as an elective in college.
i think what you are really asking is "how did you learn". and the answer to that is, i learned through experience, through investigation, and through reflection. i spent my high school years driving my sunday school teacher crazy by questioning every assertion he made, by disagreeing with almost everything, and by thinking and listening.
in college i hung out with mystics, polytheists, and one extremly hypocritical and obnoxious born-again christian who almost ruined the whole religion for me. i took a class in myth and mysticism, and read about experiences had by people from all religious backgrounds...
around that time i had my own direct experience, which btw, had nothing specifically christian about it.
then five years ago, i came into a spiritual fellowship. not christian, not religious at all, spiritual. and there i've met many people whos lives have been saved (quite literally, from death) by god, but not through any church or religion.
which doesn't mean i don't go to church every sunday, and listen to my minister (who does great sermons, even if i don't always agree). because god is there too... and its always good to worship god in community with others, even if you don't agree with them on every thing. but i don't make the mistake that thats the ONLY place to find god.
because i know better.
You know that Jesus is the answer. Fine. On what information did you base this decision? Somewhere, somehow, you had to figure out that Jesus is the one who can save you. Now, unless he came down from on high and sat there and had a talk with you face-to-face you HAD to get that knowledge from the teachings of the church. Whether you sat in a fundamentalist Bible study or had a one-on-one dialogue with someone who hasn't darkened the door of a church building in ten years is absolutely irrelevant to this. The church is what has preserved and witnessed to Jesus' life, death and resurrection since his Ascension and Pentecost.
God can reveal himself in any way he wants to. IMV, he has chosen to reveal himself most fully through Jesus Christ, who has chosen to reveal himself through the communion of saints. Now, if you can tell me anywhere else that I can get the same depth of knowledge about Jesus' life, death, teachings, etc., I will retract everything I've said thus far. I don't think you could point me in a direction that would give even the basic facts about Jesus, much less enough information for me to say "yep, he’s the one".
quote:
You know that Jesus is the answer. Fine. On what information did
you base this decision? Somewhere, somehow, you had to figure
out that Jesus is the one who can save you.
i'm afraid you are making an unfounded assumption here.
this is, after all, posted on the i am not a chritian thread.
jesus is not the answer. jesus is one possible answer. but as i said, i do not make the mistake that my church, or any church, is the only way to find god.
i'm afraid i have to with equal fervor say, you are wrong, and then drop the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
erin, i am truly sad for you that you feel that way, and i'm afraid that doesn't leave us anywhere to go in this discussion.i'm afraid i have to with equal fervor say, you are wrong, and then drop the subject.
You can if you want, but I think that's a cheap shot. Sad that I feel what way?
quote:
erin, i am truly sad for you that you feel that way, and i'm afraid that doesn't leave us anywhere to go in this discussion.
That's rubbish. We have started many a previous discussion with Erin's very statement on the old boards.
quote:
No one will get to heaven without Jesus
But to say end of discussion because someone disagrees won't get anyone's thinking anywhere. You can hardly expect "oh I agree too" discussion in Hell.
besides, debates for purgatory, not hell, right? hells for ranting? well i did as much ranting as i'm gonna'.
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
yes, but "your wrong, i'm right" isn't going to get us anywhere either. she said her belief, i said mine, i'm not going to change her mind, she's not going to change mine, and i don't see any reason to take it further, since nothing constructives going to come out of it.
Uh, Nicole, your parting shot was a condescending "I feel very sad for you" with absolutely NO clarification of what you are talking about. I have the distinct feeling you are misattributing views to me that I do not hold, but you can't be bothered to clarify what you mean.
quote:
besides, debates for purgatory, not hell, right? hells for ranting? well i did as much ranting as i'm gonna'.
Wrong. Debate is as much a part of Hell as it is Purgatory. Hell just has some other things, too.
but i'm not getting drawn into a fight. not on this issue.
You feel very sad for me. I want to know why.
some of my dearest most beloved friends are not christian. if i believed that god was going to condemn them to hell, how could i carry on? i'd either have to spend all my time with them trying to save them, which would probably alienate them, or else live in perpetual sorrow for their fate.
and i think thats a very sad way to live, and i'm sorry that you have put yourself in that position.
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
because your belief is wrong, and i'm sad for anyone ho holds a belief so counter to the truth and beauty that i know. because by believing that anyone whos not a christian is damned must leave you in the position of either not caring for and about anyone whos not christian, or else dealing with the sorrow of caring for people you know to be damned.some of my dearest most beloved friends are not christian. if i believed that god was going to condemn them to hell, how could i carry on? i'd either have to spend all my time with them trying to save them, which would probably alienate them, or else live in perpetual sorrow for their fate.
and i think thats a very sad way to live, and i'm sorry that you have put yourself in that position.
I knew it. I KNEW it.
Before we go any further, please cite where I said that if you are not Christian you are damned.
quote:
I will make a definitive statement here: No one will get to heaven without Jesus. NO ONE.
But I don't recall ever saying that Jesus=your local church...
if this doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't know jesus, ie, who's not christian, is going somewhere else, what does it mean? and if going somewhere else doesn't mean damnation, what does it mean?
(i can't believe you pulled me into arguing this. give yourself points. grrr.....
)
Re Jesus being the only way to the Father. Do you honestly mean some tribesman in a South American rain forest who has never heard the name of Jesus Christ is just out of luck? Did God love me more than the tribesman by letting me be born into a (relatively) Christian culture where I would come to know Jesus? The tribesman is just out of luck? I'm sorry. I don't think that I buy that. A God who would allow me to find the way to salvation, but would condemn the tribesman to perdition en ventre sa mere would be a cruel, arbitrary God, and I'm not sure that I would want to know him, much less worship him.
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
if this doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't know jesus, ie, who's not christian, is going somewhere else, what does it mean? and if going somewhere else doesn't mean damnation, what does it mean?(i can't believe you pulled me into arguing this. give yourself points. grrr.....
We're actually not going to argue, and I knew we wouldn't once I could get out of you what you meant by that.
And what I meant by that statement is that Jesus really is the only way to the Father. Why are you, and Tim, so sure that Christianity is the only way to Jesus? What I have been talking about in this thread, up until this tangent, is how CHRISTIANS who confess Jesus as their Lord and Savior know him. This is a whole different kettle of fish.
Secondly, Erin did not say that no one who was not a Christian would go to Heaven. What she said was that noone would get to Heaven with out Jesus. Big big difference. I agree with what Erin said, as I understand what she meant. However, I disagree absolutely with the other statement. This is not an illogical position to hold!
Indeed, the God I know certainly wouldn't just abandon someone in a forest because noone had told them about Jesus. But He does have the power to reach out to these people. And I think He does.
On the other hand, if people can reach out to others, (no, not in any potentially offensive way, but genuinely to love them), surely it can make the whole coming to know God thing easier in many cases?
Else why tell us to go and spread the good News?
And now, Erin has posted a good reply, for I have been slow typing, in an attempt to phrase things unambiguously. But I shall post this anyway.
The Shadow Lover
and i appologize for making an unfounded assumption.
however i think you owe me one for deliberatly phrasing that in a way that i'm certain you knew was open to misinterpretation.
I also think you might owe Erin for not saying, by way of reply to your sorriness for her, that she felt sorry for you, having to feel pity for those not in need of it
The Shadow Lover
- - - - - - - - - - - -
This is in Hell, after all.
I am sorry, though not for what I said, because from past experience it was clear enough, but for hammering it as adamantly as I did. I had a feeling there was a misunderstanding somewhere, and that’s what prompted the response. I don't mind if you think I'm an idiot for what I actually believe (I think some beliefs are idiotic in the extreme), I just want to make sure that you really do know what I believe before you make that decision.
And if anyone knows what it is to have to come crawling back and apologize for tearing someone a new one because I misinterpreted their statements, it's me.
And Shadow Lover is right, this was, in the end, a very useful illustration.
quote:
Also, I grew up going to Catholic school, and even though my theology is decidedly not Roman Catholic, I would say that the pope and I probably interpret the creeds about the same.
How can you tell? And why aren't you Catholic?
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
And what I meant by that statement is that Jesus really is the only way to the Father. Why are you, and Tim, so sure that Christianity is the only way to Jesus?
Erin is using a common debating tactic of hers now, i.e. putting words into people's mouths. Can you show me, Erin, where I said what you attributed to me? Does not my post about the tribesman in the rainforest contradict what you impute to me?
quote:
Do you honestly mean some tribesman in a South American rain forest who has never heard the name of Jesus Christ is just out of luck? Did God love me more than the tribesman by letting me be born into a (relatively) Christian culture where I would come to know Jesus?
This was in response to my assertion that the only way to Jesus is the Father. So let's look at this logically, shall we?
I make an assertion that Jesus is the only way to the Father. You come back at me with some non sequitur post about how the tribesman in east nowhere isn't in a Christian culture, so how can he get to Jesus. Now, if you do not believe that Christianity is the only way to Jesus, then I am completely at a loss to understand what, exactly, the point of this post was.
Remember, YOU were the one who offered this example as a refutation of my assertion that Jesus is the only way to the Father. That makes absolutely NO sense unless you think that Christianity is the only way to Jesus.
I haven't followed this thread thoroughly, having only arrived back onboard in the last few days, but...
...some may recall that I withdrew the label 'Christian' from myself some 15 months ago, due to the very fact that a Christian label indicates that some should believe XYZ. When I came to the realisation that I didn't believe XYZ, but in fact ABC, I knew I could not authentically use the label 'Christian' of myself. While the sense of security that Christian beliefs offers is attractive, and I find myself desiring to follow Christ, and I can not jump through the theological and semantic hoops placed there by the church - hence I can not call myself a Christian. So there you have it!
This post is intended as an identification with the originator of the thread!
TimP
I'm so thankful I don't believe in it (see Purgatory).
~Elizabeth
You have asserted yourself on this very thread that the Church has been the primary witness to God. So by your own assertions, a person who had not experienced the witness of the Church does not know the message of Jesus Christ, and, thus, by your further assertions, cannot hope for salvation.
That is, unless you believe in multiple incarnations of Jesus Christ. If you believe this, on what authority of Scripture, tradition or reason do you base your belief?
Do you believe, as the Mormons do, that Jesus became incarnate to peoples in North America in ancient times? Where else did he become incarnate? If he has not made himself known through the witness of the Church, then he must have made himself known some other way, if our hypothetical tribesman is to have any hope for salvation. Else, he does not know Jesus and has no hope of salvation.
My questioning lies in a wholly different area. I mean, to my finite mind, I cannot see Jesus Christ, on the Day of Judgment, giving someone like the Dalai Lama the thumbs down. And yet the worldview (for want of a better word, for I think that it is a mistake to call Buddhism a religion) of the Dalai Lama cannot be said in any way to be based in the tenets of Christianity. The sayings of the Buddha may contain some similarities to those of Jesus, but they are not the message of Jesus. And so, he, as a Buddhist cannot know Jesus, and according to you, Erin, cannot, therefore, hope for salvation.
quote:
So by your own assertions, a person who had not experienced the witness of the Church does not know the message of Jesus Christ, and, thus, by your further assertions, cannot hope for salvation.
is either extremely faulty logic, or deliberate misrepresentation. Either way, it is, in fact, an outright lie, as I have asserted NOTHING of the sort. In any case, I did not say that KNOWING Jesus was the key to salvation, did I? NO. All I said is that you (or I or anyone else) cannot get into Heaven without him. How he handles it with non-Christians is a complete mystery to me, and I have never said otherwise.
So you are free to retract all of this misattribution at any time. I will not, however, hold my breath.
quote:(emphasis mine)
Originally posted by Tim:
You have asserted yourself on this very thread that the Church has been the primary witness to God. So by your own assertions, a person who had not experienced the witness of the Church does not know the message of Jesus Christ, and, thus, by your further assertions, cannot hope for salvation.
Here's the task. List those assertions of Erin's. They actually have to be said, not implied (that's what an assertion is).
Otherwise I'll have to assume that you've just made this bit up. I'd also be careful to go back and note any place, on this thread, that Erin has said exactly the opposite of what you've said are her views. It may help your next post.
quote:
...The sayings of the Buddha may contain some similarities to those of Jesus, but they are not the message of Jesus. And so, he, as a Buddhist cannot know Jesus, and according to you, Erin, cannot, therefore, hope for salvation.
Same task.
Let's make it easier. Match up a single sentence or idea in your post that equates with what Erin has posted. Anything. Anything at all.
I'm sure you can do it.
Okay, we're going to take the church out of the world. Meaning no scripture, no witness.
Now, someone tell me how you find out about Jesus. Not some touchy-feely warm fuzzy New Age "God is love, the beauty of the stars tells me so" thing, tell me how you know about this man Jesus. How you know his nature, how you know he lived, how you know ANYTHING about him.
2. Quote by Erin:
[i]Now, unless he came down from on high and sat there and had a talk with you face-to-face you HAD to get that knowledge from the teachings of the church. Whether you sat in a fundamentalist Bible study or had a one-on-one dialogue with someone who hasn't darkened the door of a church building in ten years is absolutely irrelevant to this. The church is what has preserved and witnessed to Jesus' life, death and resurrection since his Ascension and Pentecost.
In the second quote, especially, Erin, you assert assert that without the church, there is no knowledge of Jesus. You say any knowledge of Jesus HAD to come from the church. So I am not twisting your words.
3. Quote by Erin:
I will make a definitive statement here: No one will get to heaven without Jesus. NO ONE.
So, Erin, if we posit the truth of your statements 1, and especially 2, we can encapsulate your thoughts as follows: no church, no Jesus.
If we accept the truth of your third statement, then we could summarize your thoughts as follows: no Jesus, no salvation.
I don't think that I am doing any kind of word-contortion here. Why are you so excitedly saying that I am, rather than answering the questions that I have posed to you?
And, David, with regard to your "ganging up," I think that I have backed up my statements with quotations from your co-administrator. Thank you for your faith in me ("I know you can do it."). If I cared about your opinion of me, I would be touched.
quote:
So, Erin, if we posit the truth of your statements 1, and especially 2, we can encapsulate your thoughts as follows: no church, no Jesus.If we accept the truth of your third statement, then we could summarize your thoughts as follows: no Jesus, no salvation.
Here's where you're making the mistake. "no church, no Jesus" is not what Erin said, it's an interpolation of yours. If I can summarise what she's said, "no church, no witness to Jesus. You've even quoted where she said something along those lines, but you've chosen to draw an entirely unwarranted conclusion.
Whether or not I agree with what Erin says is irrelevant, I'm not going to stand back and let anyone reinterpret someone else's arguments so that they can then knock them down. That's part of my brief. Misinterpretation is fine, but you refuse to acknowledge that you have indeed misinterpreted. How more times does Erin have to say "that's not what I said?"
Hell has its responsibilites too, you know.
[fixed a typo the totally reversed the meaning of a sentence!]
[ 02 June 2001: Message edited by: David ]
My posts quoted in your 1 and 2 were in reference to Jesus the man, which I said repeatedly. Therefore your inferences are wrong. My words, long before you entered this discussion [emphasis mine]:
quote:
Again, though, my question remains: how do you know about Jesus? I don't mean being aware of the existence of God, I mean how do you know about Jesus as a person?
and this
quote:
tell me how you know about this man Jesus. How you know his nature, how you know he lived, how you know ANYTHING about him.
One more time, and pay attention: I was talking about how Christians know about Jesus. I cannot make it any simpler than that. Also, I would be interested in where in the following statement you find the word KNOW, because I surely don't see it:
quote:
I will make a definitive statement here: No one will get to heaven without Jesus. NO ONE. But I don't recall ever saying that Jesus=your local church...
If you cannot in fact find the word know, then all of your arguments have been against strawmen of your own creation (a typical debate tactic of yours, I might add). One more time, and I will use the simplest words possible: I was initially talking about how Christians know who Jesus the man is. The latter statement you quoted was in response to Nicole's words that Jesus is not the answer, with which I totally disagree. I don't know how non-Christians get to Jesus.
So unless you can prove that I actually said that those who do not confess Jesus as Lord and Savior with their tongues don't get to heaven, I have no choice but to determine that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. It's one thing to disagree, quite another to deliberately misrepresent someone else's views. The latter is a tactic I neither care for nor will engage any further.
That is what you said, any attempts by you to obfuscate to the contrary.
Like Nicole, I am tired of arguing the same point over and over with you. You need to learn to accept it when people challenge you on things, Erin, administrator or not. I know that you think that any and all opinions you hold equal the truth. Life has a funny way of teaching people who think that that the contrary is true.
So, like Nicole, I am bowing out of this thread. I know that we will see one another elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
How can you tell? And why aren't you Catholic?
Sorry, Gill, in dealing with the bullshit I missed this post completely.
How can I tell that the pope and I most likely interpret the creeds in the same way? I remember my Catholic theology. I remember what we were taught about the creeds. And I pretty much agree with the interpretations, aside from Rome's assertions that they are in fact the one holy catholic apostolic church.
The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, has dedicated his life to studying the teachings of the church. Now, the only way he and I would not agree about the interpretations would be if he has lied throughout his entire priesthood. While that is certainly a possibility, I don't believe it to be the case. While I disagree on some fundamental points of theology, I believe John Paul II is a righteous and honest man.
Which brings me to why I'm not Catholic. I never was Catholic, for starters, and I had some pretty unpleasant theology taught to me by the more rabid pre-Vatican II nuns (even though this was in the 80s). I don't believe the pope has the authority to speak ex cathedra. I don't believe in a lot of the Marian theology that is a requirement of the faith.
[edited for typos]
[ 02 June 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
quote:
And isn’t pontificating (and I use
that word deliberately) about the criteria for membership of ‘Club Heaven’ responsible ultimately for mass tortures and executions in Europe and the rape of the ‘New World’? In other words, isn’t it that which has done most to bring the Faith into disrepute?
Europeans raped the New World out of greed. Mass torture and executions done in the name of God and the Church were abomination. THey were not however prompted by debate by theologians over who was and who was not a Christian.
As to what has most brought the faith into disrepute, I would say it is the many failures of those of us who profess to be Christians to make even a respectable effort to live up to what we profess -- not something to be pinned exclusively on theologians and their debates, nor upon those of us who consider ourselves orthodox.
And another thing:
quote:
intellectual speculation is healthy, desirable and (sometimes) good fun but how much of it is actually necessary to support a living and active faith?
The implicit separation of intellect from faith is to me just another way of saying, "Park your brain at the door when you come to church." All of me comes to church, all of me is summoned by God. Certainly one may have faith without having intellect, but if God has given intellect, I imagine he expects the gift to be used.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim:
Nor will I Erin. Making claims of misrepresentation is the classic manoeuvre of those who have been convicted with their own words. Rather like George Bush saying his promises of limits to greenhouse gasses were "a mistake."
Bullshit Tim. Not only was the claim of misrepresentation made, it was shown where you did this. Of course, you won't respond to that because you know you're completely wrong.
Correct me in turn if I'm wrong, Tim, but are you calling Erin a liar here?
quote:
You said that unless Jesus appeared to someone personally, that person's knowledge of Jesus had to come from the church. You also said, plainly, that without Jesus there was no salvation.That is what you said, any attempts by you to obfuscate to the contrary.
Point taken. Err...hang on a minute. Isn't this the just the same basic error you've been repeating for the last few posts? The one that has been pointed out to you at least three times?
Are you just trying to be antagonistic or are you irremedialy obtuse? I ask merely for information.
quote:
Like Nicole, I am tired of arguing the same point over and over with you. You need to learn to accept it when people challenge you on things, Erin, administrator or not. I know that you think that any and all opinions you hold equal the truth. Life has a funny way of teaching people who think that that the contrary is true.
Arguing the same point over and over is a waste of time if you won't admit that you made a mistake in interpretation. Why can't you understand that?
quote:
So, like Nicole, I am bowing out of this thread. I know that we will see one another elsewhere.
Ahh yes, the "bow out gracefully even though I've caused a shitfight for no reason than to stroke my own ego" routine.
Anyone who reads this will know you're wrong, Tim, and simply trying to salvage something from the mess you've created with your own misreading of what others write.
Deal with it.
A few things:
1. nicolermw talks about "knowing". This is very dangerously close to asserting a gnostic faith -- by which the members were saved through secret knowledge.
which brings me to
2. the Creeds. The early church developed the creeds to assert what the orthodox Christian church believed, as against "heretical" claims by people like the gnostics.
The creeds are a statement of what the CHURCH believes (the Nicene Creed is usually recited in the first person plural -- "WE believe"). Think of the Creeds as lik te Constitution of the United States. The Constitution constitutes what the government believe. Individual citizens do not necessarily believe it all, but that does not make them something other than Americans, does it? Of course, some people interpret the Consitution literally, and those people probably WOULD say it makes makes people un- if not non-American.
One more thing: Jesus didn't come here to start a religion. That's quite right, Jesus already HAD a religion -- Judaism. St Paul started a religion, and his was apocalyptic. People in Pauline churches thought the second coming was right around the corner -- could happen any day and they'd better prepare for it. Th Pauline church was probably more or less charismatic and very informal. However, as tim passed and the End Times didn't occur, the church had to settle in for the long haul -- it had to develop a structure and statement of faith, which brings us back to the creeds.
HT
Pikachu, you wrote,
"But if you, the reader, do not believe the Bible in the same manner that I do, then we truly have no common ground with which to discuss such matters."
Forgive me, but I must disagree here. I respect you for believing and saying what you did in your last post, but I can't possibly agree with you. Surely that doesn't mean we can't have a reasoned discussion?? (Maybe not in Hell, but at least in Purgatory? )
quote:
I believe that the Bible is true, I've read it in its entirety and I believe it all, even what I don't understand. But if you, the
reader, does not believe the Bible in the same manner that I do, then we truly have no common ground with which to discuss such matters.
In what way do you believe stuff you don't understand? Is this sort of the way I believe in electricity? I accept that it exists because the lights go on when I flip the switch, but I'm pretty much trusting people who do understand it when they tell me that it's all because of electricity.
As to having no common ground to discuss important things like what defines Christians -- this makes me wonder why you bothered registering for a bulletin board with such a diverse group of people. I imagine a lot of us don't see eye to eye with you on the Bible.
quote:
Also, I believe that the Bible is true, I've read it in its entirety and I believe it all, even what I don't understand. But if you, the reader, does not believe the Bible in the same manner that I do, then we truly have no common ground with which to discuss such matters.
Are you implying that the foundation of all this is the Bible? I guarantee that I don't see the Bible in the same manner you do, but I would say that we do have some common ground to discuss such matters: Jesus.
quote:
Also, I believe that the Bible is true, I've read it in its entirety and I believe it all, even what I don't understand. But if you, the reader, does not believe the Bible in the same manner that I do, then we truly have no common ground with which to discuss such matters.
even if our understanding about truth and the Bible or ways of reading are different we would still have a common text. That is a pretty strong common ground, minor textual difficulties included.
'frin
I think Erin’s answer is that a faith in strict accordance with the creeds is not necessary to salvation because one can know Jesus outside the church (I do hope that’s right, Erin). So Jesus can be your gateway to God without bothering with all the theological baggage?
Hmmmm – so what is the purpose of the church? To witness to Jesus? But what is the most essential aspect of Jesus and His ministry that the Church should witness to?
Love, grace, forgiveness, perhaps? And does it matter what we believe about his conception? (Incidentally what is the creed-based current understanding of the historical Jesus’ genetic make-up?)Does it matter what we believe about the mechanics of our own slavation?
I think that creeds are useful tools – but they should not be allowed to dominate the agenda. Insistence upon assent to them does not protect us from the lunatic fringe; it divides and, IMHO, diminishes the Christian witness of the Church.
Don't think for a minute that those churches don't have their own informal creeds, however. Or not so informal. The Southern Baptists and the Mennonites have their deep roots in anti-credal traditions, but they both have written out statements of belief.
Are the creeds necessary to sustaining a lively faith? No, I don't think so. But credal statements, whether they're called that or not, are inevitable. Even if all that's required to be a Christian is that one confess "Jesus is Lord" -- that's a creed.
Credo in the Latin does not merely mean "I give intellectual assent." It means "I believe" with these connotations: I have faith in this, I place my trust in this, I stake my life on this.
Simply believing certain things to be true does me no good at all. Believing the house is on fire won't stop me getting burnt, action is required. Similarly Christian belief must always be married to action, but right action requires right belief - it's the truth that will set us free (John 8v32). No truth=no freedom.
Are we sure this thread doesn't belong in Purgatory??
The board has room for most theologies and I think perhaps you didn't understand my reply either. I do not know if I hold the same model of truthfulness as you do to the Bible. I do know that you can discuss with the Bible as a text even with people who dismiss it as wrong. It is pretty much the same as discussing Jane Eyre as a text - it can be judged on its message, style and ideology.
But I do believe the whole of the Nicene Creed or at least believe that each part is within God's power. A few years ago I had a lousy Christology and worked hard to get to the point where I could assent to the Creeds.
'frin
quote:
Originally posted by Pikachu:
Erin: yes, Jesus is common ground to discuss matters. I have learned about Jesus from the Bible. Please let me know where you have learned about Jesus. I'm not being sarcastic, I'd really like to know.
I learn about Jesus through the Bible, through the witness of the church over the past several thousand years, through his personal revelations to others. And in none of that am I required to believe that the Bible is 100% factual on every single point.
quote:
Is this bulletin board diverse enough to accept someone with beliefs like mine? Or are only liberal beliefs accepted here? Why would someone like me post to this bulletin board? Because I have both the grace to accept the blows and the intestinal fortitude to stand for my beliefs instead of giving in to what is the popular mindset of the day. Ruth, I find it very interesting that you are arguing in favor of creeds, but when I made a statement of belief, i.e., a "creed", you questioned why I am here. You seemed offended by my presence on this board. Yet, no one has offended me.
It is very interesting that no one has addressed my three questions above. Ruth? Rob? Anyone? Do you need Jesus? You tell me.
Here I stand. I am not afraid. I harbor no ill will toward anyone.
The martyr act is a bit thin. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean you're not welcome. And I said, long before you posted this, that yes, we do need Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by Pikachu:
Ruth: I cannot tell you how this message gets to you but I know that it does somehow. I could tell you how a flower grows but I can't tell you the reasoning behind a flower growing at all.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
quote:
Is this bulletin board diverse enough to accept someone with beliefs like mine? Or are only liberal beliefs accepted here?
Of course not. But when you say that we have no common ground if we don't agree on the Bible, it seems there won't be much to discuss.
quote:
Ruth, I find it very interesting that you are arguing in favor of creeds, but when I made a statement of belief, i.e., a "creed", you questioned why I am here. You seemed offended by my presence on this board. Yet, no one has offended me.
I didn't question why you are here because you made a statement of belief -- I asked why you're here because of the particular belief you stated, i.e., that there's no common ground if we don't agree on the Bible.
I'm not offended by your presence on this board -- but see below for what I do find offensive.
quote:
It is very interesting that no one has addressed my three questions above. Ruth? Rob? Anyone? Do you need Jesus? You tell me.
And those three questions were:
quote:
1) Do you - I mean YOU, personally need Jesus?
Yes.
quote:
2) IF you personally need Jesus, why doesn't that person "over there" need Him? (If "that person over there" doesn't need Him, neither do you.)
I never said that someone didn't need Jesus.
quote:
3) If you have Jesus, what else do you need?
Depends on what you mean by "need." For salvation? Nothing. To keep body and soul together? Food, shelter, etc.
To deal with people who come to a Christian bulletin board and demand answers to the above questions, which to me smacks of self-righteousness in the extreme, I need patience.
[edit code]
[ 05 June 2001: Message edited by: frin ]
quote:
I learn about Jesus through the Bible, through the witness of the church over the past several thousand years, through his personal revelations to others. And in none of that am I required to believe that the Bible is 100% factual on every single point.
Erin,
I do not want to nitpick - that is not why I posted what I have above. Its just that I don't get a chance to ask many people this question and it has come up in your statement above. You mention that you know about Jesus through the witness of the church over the past several thousand years, through his personal revelation to others. I know this sounds stupidly rhetorical but do you have your own personal revelations of Jesus that help you form more of an understanding of who He is? Also, your comment about the witness of the church intrigues me - most would say the witness of the church over the years has not represented God too well, how has it helped you learn about Jesus?
Just curious.
TC ...
quote:
Originally posted by TC:
I know this sounds stupidly rhetorical but do you have your own personal revelations of Jesus that help you form more of an understanding of who He is?
I have found that, for whatever reason, Jesus has chosen not to deal with me directly. Maybe it is because he knows that I am an emotional roller-coaster, maybe it's because he knows I'm really stubborn or... I don't know why. It just doesn't ever really happen. I deal with God quite a bit (and boy does HE get an earful), and through that I get insights into Jesus, but directly... no.
quote:
Also, your comment about the witness of the church intrigues me - most would say the witness of the church over the years has not represented God too well, how has it helped you learn about Jesus?
Most would be wrong about the church representing God as poorly as its been accused of.
How has it helped me learn about Jesus. Through the actions of the martyrs, the lives of the saints, the fact that you cannot name a single other faith system in the history of the world that has as much social justice to its credit, its insistence from the beginning that we are obligated to provide for our poor, its belief that all human beings are in the image of God, its subtle and permanent subversion of the class system, and so on and so forth.
Institutional churches have, in fact, perpetrated some serious evil in the name of Christ. My contention is, and always will be, that looking back over the past two thousand years, those are the exceptions, rather than the norm. And even as those events were unfolding, true Christians were protesting and being martyred for speaking out against them.
Firstly, I will answer your questions, then I have a couple for you.
quote:
1) Do you - I mean YOU, personally need Jesus?
quote:
2) IF you personally need Jesus, why doesn't that person "over there" need Him?
(If "that person over there" doesn't need Him, neither do you.)
quote:
3) If you have Jesus, what else do you need?
And now for mine:
quote:
Please let me know where you have learned about Jesus.
The question I have is: why do you have to believe that all of the Bible is true to find out about Jesus from it. For me, for example, the contents of the epistles is not necessarily true (although it may be helpful, divinely inspired, e.t.c) as I see Paul's epistles, for example, as being a lot like the sermons given by our minister every Sunday, rather than divine truth. That doesn't mean I ignore them. I also think that sermons can be just as divinely inspired, but that anything that is written by a person, whether it is divinely inspired or not, is going to have some of the authors human fallibility in it. I have found out a lot about Jesus from the Bible, although i do not think all of the Bible is true.
I don't think this potentially different view of Scripture removes our grounds for discussion? I certainly respect your position, and would like to discuss Scripturally based questions with you, although I don't find it very easy to think of Paul's writings as the actual Word of God.
quote:
Also, your comment about the witness of the church intrigues me - most would say the witness of the church over the years has not represented God too well, how has it helped you learn about Jesus?
This has turned into a mammoth post, for which my apologies. I hope I haven't been too incoherent either...I'm happy to clarify anything i have been incoherent about.
The Shadow Lover
quote:
Originally posted by Pikachu:
I apologize for my comment about "liberal beliefs"; I was angry. It seems that you took my "three questions" personally; when I originally stated them, I meant them for anybody who was reading this thread. *snip* What did you find offensive? My attitude? The questions themselves? If it was my attitude, I apologize. If it was the questions.. the questions I asked were the most basic questions a person can ask about Jesus. A child would be right in asking these questions.
I think it's presumptuous for you to pose these questions on a Christian bulletin board, especially the first one about whether we need Jesus. Just about everyone who reads the boards has already self-identified him or herself as a Christian just by being here; the few who are not Christians, who don't think they need Jesus, have said who they are.
It reminds me of nothing so much as of a preacher who feels there must be an altar call at every service, even when there are no new faces in the pews.
quote:
Is it wrong to come to a Christian bulletin board and ask the most basic questions about Jesus? I thought it would be safe to do that here. Smacks of self-righteousness? In what way have I declared my own righteousness? I have not insisted that you even agree with me.
Did you honestly expect that I or any other Christian here would say "No, I don't need Jesus"?! C'mon!
quote:
My whole point of all of this was the third question: if you have Jesus, what else do you need? Which takes us back to the very first post on this thread. Jesus is all we need for salvation. Not creeds. Not dress codes. Not regiments. Only Jesus.
I doubt very much that you're going to get much of an argument against this from anyone. But having taken that first step, declared need for and dependence on the Christ, we then go on to consider what that means. We will always come back to that basic confession: Jesus is Lord.
But unless we drop dead immediately after saying that, we're going to NEED to work out the implications of that confession, which will lead different people to different things: some people to tomes of theology, some to creeds, some to liturgical worship, some to a capella Church of Christ singing, some to Christian communes ...
'frin
quote:
'frin, that is true, we can discuss the Bible as a text, as a book. It is just very difficult for me to look at it as something other than the Word of God.
There's a crux here. You (Pikachu) have said you believe everything written in the Bible is true. Well, in a way, so do I. But I wonder if we mean the same thing. Certainly I call it the word of God, although I prefer to reserve the capital wubble-wu for Jesus, you understand.
Defining terms...but this is more purgatorial. Why not open this can of worms over there?
quote:
Originally posted by frin:
And once all that is agreed I gather we need birettas, chausables, small dragon puppets and super-frontals or we are missing out on something.'frin
Definitely small dragon puppets. Anyone worshipping without them is worshipping the anti-Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Definitely small dragon puppets. Anyone worshipping without them is worshipping the anti-Christ.
Good. Something we can all accept without argument... 
Perhaps we could get Sooty and Sweep in to enact Jesus' ministry. Sue could play the women with permanent menstruation
'frin
Although there are some people who accept Christ as their Savior and that's it, no more. But for those of us who are hungry for more, let's go wherever we can to get "fed".
'frin
1. All true knowledge of God arises from the direct experience of His presence and action in one's life. All else--scripture, tradition, authority, reason, etc.--is secondary and supplementary, only able to enlighten you to the extent that you are open to the leadings of the Spirit in your heart. This doesn't necessarily mean voices and visions--as someone suggested, human love can be a key to understanding God's love, and if one believes that all that is good comes from God...you complete the syllogism.
2. Human language is utterly incapable of formulating the truth about God. We are utterly incapable of making a single statement about God that is simply, literally true. We are like blind men fumbling around an infinite elephant, with nothing but metaphors and approximations, all of which prove false if taken too literally or pushed too far.
3. Because we are human, we live in language most of the time and need to express our experience in language. Therefore, we have to try to put our understanding of God--however incomplete and inadequate it may be--into words. Hence, creeds, confessions of faith, theologies. As long as we remember that they are all works in progress that can never be complete, rough sketches that can only hint at the real thing, we're okay. Deep experience of God may lead one to make a statement of faith; I doubt that assent to a creed leads to a deeper experience.
Regards,
Timothy
Bold assertions indeed but good ones. My view of the bible has been that it is not where God ends so much as where He starts. I've experienced God's presence in many different places and ways and each experience has led me back to the truth about His character that I've gleaned by reading about it in the bible.
I don't think we can contain God the way some folk try to. He is true to His character but He does not always behave the way we expect Him to. I think there needs to be some mystery in the way we approach God for he is, as you say, We are like blind men fumbling around an infinite elephant, with nothing but metaphors and approximations....
I'm not saying anything new here other than I have found that I need a balance I deal with the knowledge of God and I have to remind myself that he is vastly beyond my capacity to completely know Him.
Selah
TC...
What I meant in the 2nd para above is that when we approach God we need to remember that He is not completely 'knowable'. I liked what Tim wrote about us being like blind men but I didn't quite achieve the connection I wanted.
Sorry.
Bother.
TC...
I mean, unless you mistook it for a very tall hippo there isn't much you could get wrong with an elephant. Apart from its gender.
'frin
TC ... [who has never heard the elephant analogy]
quote:
Originally posted by Pikachu:
Let's say that my best friend is a non-Christian. What then? Do I....
-Never, ever bring up the subject?
-Tell them that they don't need Jesus, that all beliefs lead to Heaven? (But then, I don't need Jesus either in that case, do I? He has become simply a choice.)
-Tell them, don't worry, you're good enough, you've obeyed all the rules - well, almost; you've gone to enough church services, etc. -well, almost... (another reason that I need Jesus myself, because I'm not perfect)?
My dearest friend is in fact not a Christian. I don't do any of the above. I also do not tell her that she needs Jesus, though I believe that she does. When I was not a Christian, people telling me I needed Jesus were a good reason to stay very far away from the church.
What I do is to tell her about my own spiritual life and experiences. She listens carefully because after all she is a wonderful friend, and she is also actually very interested. And I pray for her.
Another thing about dragon puppets: if you don't get one from the right source and it if isn't blessed by a cleric at the proper season of the year, it won't work, and all will be for nought. You might as well be trying to use Elmo.
There's nothing particularly wrong with the Creeds (apart from the fact that they reflect a rather Greek philosophical viewpoint): they are, as you say, good summing's up of faith.
But they are not the faith itself. Acceptance or non-acceptance of a set of beliefs is not faith, which is much more to do with trust in the love of God, as seen in the life, death and resurection of Christ certainly; but also as seen (imperfectly) in our own lives and in the lives of people around us.
I don't have trouble with creeds as such, except when they are used as sticks to beat people into submission, which is how the church has often used them. Instead of seeing that of God in someone else, we see a "heretic." Also, I think it's perfectly possible to follow Christ and not believe in the creeds, or parts of them; or to reinterpret them in a way that's rather more modern than philosophical ideas 2000 years out of date. The same with the Bible.
I do think they're still important as ways of summing up faith; but, as a Quaker who sometimes visits churches for the Eucharist, I tend not to say them. Not because I think they're totally wrong, but because my faith is in God, not a set of words.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
My dearest friend is in fact not a Christian. I don't do any of the above. I also do not tell her that she needs Jesus, though I believe that she does. When I was not a Christian, people telling me I needed Jesus were a good reason to stay very far away from the church.What I do is to tell her about my own spiritual life and experiences. She listens carefully because after all she is a wonderful friend, and she is also actually very interested. And I pray for her.
Hi Ruth.
what you say above.. that's pretty much the way I've been handling it. Case in point: for years my father-in-law has seen me reading the Bible, and he has seen my actions and heard my words. I've never discussed Jesus with him. I've prayed for him. And I believe that he needs Jesus as his Savior, although I've never told him that. About 2 months ago he started going to church. I had nothing to do with the circumstances that brought that about.. unless my prayers helped the circumstances along (a reason to never stop praying for something?). There have been other people in my life, such as my mother, and an old friend, who I have been praying for, while I keep silent about Jesus.. and they have started going to church, with no prompt from me except my prayers, unknown to them. I agree that if you try to shove Christianity down someone's throat, that can be a lot worse than staying silent.
I guess what I have a problem with is: when do we break the silence? Do we ever say, even timidly, lovingly, and softly, "yes.. you do need Christ as your Savior"? From what I've mentioned above, I know that people can come to Jesus without my direct intervention. But I mentioned once in my own church's bible study class that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and I immediately had about 5 people tell me I was wrong, how could I be so narrow-minded, etc. In my own Christian church. I didn't change my mind about what I said, but it was hard to take. Are you afraid for your friend in any way, concerning her beliefs/non-beliefs about Jesus? (If that question bothers you, well, it bothers me too, but I felt compelled to state it.) You keep responding to my posts and I'm grateful because I've found I'm not the only one having to deal with this..
TC & Timothy: very profound! I'm not quoting your posts here but I agree, God is a lot bigger than any of us can ever figure out until we get to the other side.. but.. what about Jesus? do we need Him? or is he just another piece of the elephant? Or.. although I believe that Jesus is the true way to salvation, I won't KNOW whether or not He's the true way to salvation until I get to the other side? Hmmm. Faith vs. truth. Tough one.
Another thing about dragon puppets: if you don't get one from the right source and it if isn't blessed by a cleric at the proper season of the year, it won't work, and all will be for nought. You might as well be trying to use Elmo.
I have an electronic plush Pikachu that talks.. will that work? Or, my dragon Beanie Baby?
I think we need elephant & hippo hand puppets. (I still have no clue what y'all are talkin' about, I'm an American.)
[formatting error corrected]
[ 08 June 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
