What Is A Personal Relationship With Christ?

[dunany77]

I'm persuaded that the bible is as it presents itself to be. A collection of inspired writings conveying the writers' understanding of things. That's kind of basic.

Were they inspired by Yahweh? Zeus? Mithra? Or by their own human agenda to create a mythology around a man who may or may not have existed decades before them?

I'm inclined not to fantasize about what they may have meant, and to be satisfied with what they said. I'm also inclined to avoid reading too much into the text, but rather to consider who said it, to whom it was said, and the circumstances at the time.

Semantics is the study of meaning in communication. The word derives from Greek σημαντικός (semantikos), "significant"[1], from σημαίνω (semaino), "to signify, to indicate" and that from σήμα (sema), "sign, mark, token"[2]. In linguistics it is the study of interpretation of signs as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[3] It has related meanings in several other fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

Matthew 5:29

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Please tell me the difference between what Mathew SAID and what he MEANT.

 

Do I believe the bible should be taken literally? I don't think it should be taken anywhere. Especially, I don't think it should be taken out of the context in which it was given and inserted as a tool of policy in an institution.

.

If the bible cannot be taken literally, then you cannot defend your position that is is inspired by a divine being (if that is your position), You cannot take it literally that you are born under the curse of sin and in need of a savior who sacrificed his perfect life to take away the sins of the world. You have no measuring stick by which to guide your theology other than your own particular preferences and biases. Your christianity is based on your feelings and personal id/ego. Therefore you do not have a relationship with god, you have a relationship with your self.

 

Having said that, why should the bible speak authoritatively on any issue? Pick one; honesty, integrity, love, grace, forgiveness, anger, marriage, children, work, business, or whatever. Got a favorite?

Divinity, as presented in the religious scriptures, makes claim to the final authority for all truth and reality, and provides rules and directions for the use of creation. The question of authority in such a system is "what does God want from me and how do I know this?" The source for answers is the Bible. The written scriptures offer an opportunity for readers to consider information, determine if it is underwritten authoritatively, and then determine to obey. Obedience is the essence of human action toward authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority#Religious_perceptions

In order for you to believe that the bible is authoritative on any subject requires your to believe that the bible speaks of a literal god. But since you do not take the bible literally, then you are free to interpret it any way you please. All of the issues you state above are human issues, and the only authority on being human that can be qualitatively and quantitatively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, are other humans. The bible does not prove the existence of a god any more than a batman movie proves the existence of a real batman.

 

In order to have a relationship with someone, that someone must be real and capable of two way communication. You have given many reasons why you believe you have a relationship with some sort of superior, invisible force, but you have not given any convincing proofs that the relationship exists outside your own mind.

[Guest end3]

Now to the Christian concept of relationship. You have no worth or value in yourself. It comes entirely from Christ. That's Biblical. Period.

 

By the declarative "Period" on the end of this statement, I am understanding that you have the complete answer to the assumption behind the statement?

The Apostle Paul does:

 

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" Ga. 2:20

 

and again,

"Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. " Ro. 7:24-25

 

Is my statement accurately reflecting Paul's definitive statements here, or am I exaggerating?

 

Edit: Personally I think the Bible teaches a lot of contradictory positions in regards to this question, which is why you had the "heresy" of Pelagius who taught that man was inherently good and that Jesus was more of a guide. My statement of "period" is directed at those who see the Bible and the writings of Paul as authoritative, following Augustinian theology which teaches that man is inherently bad and needs to turn to religion (and consequently control of the Church in its teachings) for salvation. You don't have worth according to this doctrine. It's doctrine, and by default with doctrine there is a big "Period" at the end of it.

 

VAINGLORY! (Stolen from Brother Jeff)

No kidding. I've always said that of the Apostle Paul, who made that definitive statement. Vainglorious bastard, he.

 

Personal worth....I think you are mixing this up. You are saying that humanity has no personal worth without Christ? You are saying as we are created without salvation, we are nothing without Christ?

 

 

btw, nice dodge of the spear....

[BuddyFerris]

The parameters you select for D(L) and D(M) allows for any person to critically analyze what any Christian denomination believes.

 

And this type of thought and action has led to the schismatic behavior among Christians, and human action combined with varying interpretations of the Bible has led to likely why many have given up the faith entirely.

 

Therefore, anything a Christian says about a personal relationship is automatically up for scrutiny. Christians are known by their fruits and when we former believers don't see those fruits, we expose for what you really...another human being.

Dear MathGeek,

Nice formulaic breakdown of the various institutions. I don't think I'll disagree with your analysis since I might have said the same thing myself. I'll disagree without defense at the parameters you suggest represent my heart and mind.

 

I heartily approve of the position that allows "any person to critically analyze what any Christian denomination believes." Not to suggest that the scripture is the authority on the subject, but believers are encouraged to examine all things and hold on to what is good. It's the mandate of intellectual honesty, actually. If you're not going to be a nut case, you must be informed and satisfied that the principles you live by make good sense.

 

You're unfortunately correct in that arguments over such things have degenerated into schisms; a perfect example of preferring to exclude, which is something Jesus (and Paul, etc.) spoke pointedly against. So what does that make the schismatics? What does that fruit look like? There you go. You've got your data. Make your decision.

 

Buddy

[florduh]

God and I talked this morning.

 

You talk to god?

Yep.

 

Sounds crazy. Can you prove it?

Sure I can.

 

Well?

I definitely heard him. How's that for proof, smart guy?

 

That's not proof at all. You are just saying it's so.

Exactly! That's what god told me you would say. Unbelievers don't believe - understand?

 

Yes, I'm afraid I do.

[BuddyFerris]

... In order for you to believe that the bible is authoritative on any subject requires your to believe that the bible speaks of a literal god.

 

Your rule, not mine. I do, however, genuinely believe in a loving, communicative God, Son, and Holy Spirit. I'm inclined toward allowing the scripture to speak with authority to my life because it works. Pick a human issue...

 

But since you do not take the bible literally, then you are free to interpret it any way you please. All of the issues you state above are human issues, and the only authority on being human that can be qualitatively and quantitatively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, are other humans. The bible does not prove the existence of a god any more than a batman movie proves the existence of a real batman.

 

I've never suggested that the bible wasn't literally true. Have I?

 

In order to have a relationship with someone, that someone must be real and capable of two way communication. You have given many reasons why you believe you have a relationship with some sort of superior, invisible force, but you have not given any convincing proofs that the relationship exists outside your own mind.

That's correct. I haven't offered any proof, nor am I likely to. Would you be tempted to try to prove to me that you loved your wife or son? I'm not the one needing such affirmation.

 

Buddy

[florduh]

I've never suggested that the bible wasn't literally true. Have I?

 

Buddy

 

 

"Thoughtful. I've been a literalist, also."

[Antlerman]

Personal worth....I think you are mixing this up. You are saying that humanity has no personal worth without Christ? You are saying as we are created without salvation, we are nothing without Christ?

 

 

btw, nice dodge of the spear....

What are you talking about? Are you asking what my personal views of humanity are, or what I see the Apostle Paul's views of personal worth are (and consequently traditional church doctrine's views)? On the first point, I would say we all have great personal worth without a god. Each human is a unique jewel, and the choices we make allows that to either shine or be covered with dirt. But beneath the dirt is a jewel. Paul on the other hands has clearly stated that humanity, in and of itself is essentially dung. Worthless, wretched, and sinful. That whatever good there is, is NOT us, but "Christ". That's not my view, but it is the Apostle Paul's, reflected in those verses I quoted.

 

This is a very accurate reflection of what my complaint was about the idea of "personal relationship" in the traditional Christian sense. It's a relationship of a faithful dog and master, not husband and wife. My worth as a human being comes from me and my choices. It's not my mate that gives me value. Yet according to Paul, it is. This is an outdated, and misguided idea of healthy relationships in today's world.

 

How is this a dodge? I'm not hearing you addressing these points. Do you disagree with what I'm hearing Paul say?

[BuddyFerris]

Dear JernJane,

Here's my attempt at the rest or your earlier post.

I wonder as I write if God doesn't have a similar heart toward us and a love too grand for small details like imperfection.

You may think that, and that's fine with me, but it doesn't agree with the Bible. The Bible clearly says that if you break one commandment, you've broken them all - i.e. you're spiritually dead and estranged from God. In Protestant circles, you're estranged from God from the moment you come into being due to your inherited sinful nature anyway.

You're right, those things are offered variously through the bible. Contextually, separation from God is a state we find ourselves in, and hopefully, we'll find our way out. I don't think I buy using those points to scare or motivate.

I wouldn't attempt to dissuade you from your convictions, but I wonder if your experience didn't include some unrealistic expectations on what loving Jesus was all about. Thoughts?

Unrealistic according to what? According to reason - yes certainly. According to the Bible - certainly not. My expectations were derived from the Bible because I did believe in God. I did believe in the promises of the Bible. I did believe that I should be better than I was, and according to the Bible's teachings, I should be! Now, anyone with the slightest touch of reason knows that no person is perfect. That's no excuse before the God of the Bible though - it's all the more reason for him to send us all to hell.

I'm old, and still not perfect. I'm more aware now than in my youth that the standards I endorse are still beyond my ability. That doesn't keep me from trying, of course. We all try. That's just me, or anyone, trying to do right; it's not religious, it's just honest integrity.

I don't think Jesus or the other writers of the scripture, or at least the new testament, were suggesting we'd be somehow superhuman, never screwing up. On the contrary. And it's not a rules-based activity either.

Jesus clearly says that one should hate one's family by comparison to one's love for Jesus. Unrealistic? Of course, but it's his demands (or whoever wrote his lines). I didn't make them up myself.

Jacob I loved, and Esau, I hated. God said that. A study of the language and usage yields 'Jacob I chose, and Esau I chose not.' The same applies to your new testament reference. No emotions involved, just choice of which comes first.

Buddy, judging from your post, you seem like the sort of sensible Christian to me - a moderate who doesn't take the Bible literally, and filters out what is reasonable and what is not. This is, I believe, the only way to remain reasonable as a Christian, but I was a faith-head. You must understand that I was taught that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God, and I believed it as such. I spent 5 years debating Neo-Charismatics and Catholics because I believed they were going to hell. I believed they had been deceived by the devil, into believing in "another Jesus" (Galatians 3).

I understand. I was there too. I was stunned to run across a passage in a C. S. Lewis book suggesting an Arab (character in the book) was genuinely seeking to know Allah, and I his pursuit was closer to God than many who claimed God's favor for themselves. I'm now inclined to believe that whosoever would, etc. Do I think the Catholics are going to hell? I've met many whom I expect are loved and favored by God. How about the Dali Lama? Bright guy, good heart, magnificent character, who knows? Thanks for the 'sensible' compliment, by the way.

... If such a thing as a God truly exists and is anything remotely like something or someone worth worshiping, then I believe his smile upon me would be broader now than it was when I was a Christian. A good God would value honesty rather than self-delusion, courage rather than theological cowardice and science would not be his enemy, but his friend.

I agree. Absolutely. Nicely put. I'm persuaded there is a God, and that he's wildly more magnificent than the F/E version. We might have fun discussing what 'worship' really is, also. I wonder if most of what is called by the name isn't.

 

Thanks for the openness in your post.

Buddy

[dunany77]

... In order for you to believe that the bible is authoritative on any subject requires your to believe that the bible speaks of a literal god.

Your rule, not mine. I do, however, genuinely believe in a loving, communicative God, Son, and Holy Spirit. I'm inclined toward allowing the scripture to speak with authority to my life because it works. Pick a human issue...

It is your rule because you are the one who claims to have a relationship with god, and that the bible is an authority in your life. Re-read your own posts. (unless of course, you don't believe in a literal god)

 

I've never suggested that the bible wasn't literally true. Have I?

Actually you have stated that you do not take the bible literally a few times. Re-read your posts. Either you take it literally or you don't.

Which is it? Why are you waffling on this issue?

 

That's correct. I haven't offered any proof, nor am I likely to. Would you be tempted to try to prove to me that you loved your wife or son? I'm not the one needing such affirmation.

I can give you many proofs that my wife and children exist AND that I love them. You cannot do the same with god because you have a one way relationship with him/it/them. You do all the thinking, praying, talking and reading in the relationship and god does nothing in return. If you want to talk about your relationship with god, please offer up some convincing proof that he actually exists in the first place. So far, I find all of your arguments on the subject to be extremely ambiguous at best. You seem to have no real position on god other than he makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. My position is that there is no god and you have no relationship with him.

***on a side note, please don't take my arguments personally, I tend to argue with very strong convictions that some people don't appreciate. I am attacking the arguments in your posts, not you personally.

[Guest end3]

Personal worth....I think you are mixing this up. You are saying that humanity has no personal worth without Christ? You are saying as we are created without salvation, we are nothing without Christ?

 

 

btw, nice dodge of the spear....

What are you talking about? Are you asking what my personal views of humanity are, or what I see the Apostle Paul's views of personal worth are (and consequently traditional church doctrine's views)? On the first point, I would say we all have great personal worth without a god. Each human is a unique jewel, and the choices we make allows that to either shine or be covered with dirt. But beneath the dirt is a jewel. Paul on the other hands has clearly stated that humanity, in and of itself is essentially dung. Worthless, wretched, and sinful. That whatever good there is, is NOT us, but "Christ". That's not my view, but it is the Apostle Paul's, reflected in those verses I quoted.

 

This is a very accurate reflection of what my complaint was about the idea of "personal relationship" in the traditional Christian sense. It's a relationship of a faithful dog and master, not husband and wife. My worth as a human being comes from me and my choices. It's not my mate that gives me value. Yet according to Paul, it is. This is an outdated, and misguided idea of healthy relationships in today's world.

 

How is this a dodge? I'm not hearing you addressing these points. Do you disagree with what I'm hearing Paul say?

 

 

The dodge I was referring to was you turning vainglorious from yourself to Paul...

 

The problem is you are predesposed to certain things in being a biological being. Sure, you can make choices within this predestination, and I do not deny this could make for a wonderful experience for all, but the point I am trying to make is you cannot make any assertions outside of this framework........and that you declaring "period" to the end of your statement suggests that you have defined an experience outside of the framework in which you exist.

 

And I see that, IMO, that Paul, like you, has an amount of certainty in his statements.

 

Most people are not motivated internally to achieve goals and high moral standards. What would you perscribe to live to the ideals you mention to affect the population, because I would assume that you would want most to enjoy the good life you are finding.

 

Edit: I am saying that you find no possibility for that there exists a framework outside the framework in which we reside? I think that this is what Paul was referring to...

[Antlerman]

The dodge I was referring to was you turning vainglorious from yourself to Paul...

It was not a dodge, it was a roll. I stated my reasons for saying "period". It had nothing to do with ego. It's an established church doctrine. Doctrine = Period. This is what they believe - period. Fact. Stating fact is not being vain.

 

The problem is you are predesposed to certain things in being a biological being. Sure, you can make choices within this predestination, and I do not deny this could make for a wonderful experience for all, but the point I am trying to make is you cannot make any assertions outside of this framework........and that you declaring "period" to the end of your statement suggests that you have defined an experience outside of the framework in which you exist.

First of all, again, it's an established church doctrine. That's a fact. And as a fact, I said "period". They believe X - period.

 

But to your greater point. I would avoid calling this "predestination". That's a theological term that says one's final disposition is planned out in advance. In biological terms, the better term would be "determinism". Theologically, "predestination" is more like "fatalism" which sees all events as pre-concluded. Determinism recognizes that there are contributing factors that more or less limit the range of choices we can make, but we are still free to operate choice in that context and the end is not necessarily a forgone conclusion.

 

How exactly your bringing up determinism relates to my criticism of Paul's seeing humans as worthless without Christ, I'm not sure? Are you saying that I can't understand everything so I should leave room for a priest to interpret the Apostle Paul and tell me something that otherwise doesn't hold up to question? Again, Augustinian theology teaches man is inherently evil. That's a fact - period. There is not room for divine wiggle-room on that.

 

 

And I see that, IMO, that Paul, like you, has an amount of certainty in his statements.

I'll grant that I do tend to speak with conviction about the things I believe in. However, it's sort of defacto qualified that they are my opinions by the fact this is a public discussion thread with me stating my thoughts. If I state something as a fact, I will usually included references, such as I have about Pelagius, Augustine, Paul's biblical quotes, determinism, and fatalism. Those aren't matters of opinion and I back them up. If I can't, and am not sure, I usually qualify it as such. I am usually very exact in my word choices. Always have been.

 

I suppose the huge difference between Paul and me, is I don't claim to be an Apostle of God. When someone claims that, then he seems to think his opinion should be taken more as fact - which is a scary proposition. Knowledgeable, experienced, etc is vastly different than being considered an oracle of God. If I were more like Paul, then I expect you to see me as a divine authority. I don't.

 

Most people are not motivated internally to achieve goals and high moral standards. What would you perscribe to live to the ideals you mention to affect the population, because I would assume that you would want most to enjoy the good life you are finding.

Now that's a damned good question!! I respect that. I suppose I do believe that most people by default (a little determinism here) desire peace. They do so because it benefits them to have, and be part of a functioning society. So in that sense they are motivated to basic morality. Most people do want to be treated fairly, and in exchange are willing to treat other that way.

 

But to be motivated towards even higher ideals, that's a matter of philosophy and the human imagination/spirit. That's something that usually goes a step beyond basic needs (which includes peace), where one see themselves in a more metaphorical, transcendent place in the system - recognizing higher values that extend beyond the immediate need of peace. It's a sort of idealism. This is where, amongst a number of functions that its fulfilled in the past, religion holds up these values in a system of mystical symbols for the purpose of focus, and communication. But just as religion has been given a back seat by science in the area of the natural world, so too it finds itself falling behind more modern systems of belief as is seen in philosophy, the arts, etc.

 

I'm not sure the best answer. I don't think it's going to be handing it back to religion, and at the same time I don't believe it's going to come from science. I can only speculate, but would see maybe some sort of new system of mythology that, like the best poem, allows you to "have your head in the clouds, while your feet are firmly planted on the ground." Right now we're going through the struggle of extricating the dead tissue from the living tissue, and trying to find a new skin that works for the modern living being.

 

Good question.

 

Edit: I am saying that you find no possibility for that there exists a framework outside the framework in which we reside? I think that this is what Paul was referring to...

I'm all about possibility. If Paul was thinking something as you seem to be suggesting, I can't see him talking about the inherent depravity of man as the set up for it. I could see something like "In him we live and move and have our being," as a framework beyond this framework, but since he speaks of us as nothing without Christ, I don't see him suggesting something metaphysical like this. He seems to be placing us directly within that framework. We are not inherently good, and we are only good by virtue of becoming a Christian.

 

Actually, it may surprise you to know that I see the Gospel John with his Logos, as much more philosophically interesting than Paul. The Logos concept is a cool, very interesting way of looking at the world and the nature of God. It's not John's idea, but he borrows it from others. Now that's one area that does lay out a more metaphysical framework. Another topic.

[BuddyFerris]

...I've never suggested that the bible wasn't literally true. Have I?

Actually you have stated that you do not take the bible literally a few times. Re-read your posts.

I did. I didn't. I've distinguished myself as separate from the 'literalists' as have most of those who post here. While I believe the bible is true, I'm not inclined to beat up my friends with it, much less folks I don't know.

Either you take it literally or you don't.

Which is it? Why are you waffling on this issue?

 

***on a side note, please don't take my arguments personally, I tend to argue with very strong convictions that some people don't appreciate. I am attacking the arguments in your posts, not you personally.

Dear Dunany,

 

No personal affront inferred. If you had no convictions, this wouldn't be the place you'd frequent. I respect the conclusions you've reached, and I presume you've labored honestly to acquire them, as have I for mine. Convictions are, by my definition, the conclusions we've reached by hard work, trial and frequent error, and intellectual honesty, sometimes through tears. God (if he exists as I believe he does) would prefer you be honest and true to your best efforts at understanding.

 

Shall I then offer proof that I love God? My life is all I have to offer. ... and that he loves us? Again, all I have to offer is the experience of a lifetime. I expect you to disagree on the same basis.

 

On, "Either you take it literally or you don't." Perhaps you might compare that to 'either you're a right wing conservative or a left wing liberal.' I'm neither, as both are rather extreme. Got room for a non-fundamentalist, non-evangelical, non-universalist? I'm a bit of a traveler, and most of the professing Christians I've spoken with at length think similarly. I don't think the fundamentalist/evangelical's harsh message represents the good news Jesus was talking about. Thought about it?

 

Buddy

[dunany77]

Ok Buddy. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, shall we? As far as I can gather from your posts, you have made the following points:

 

1) You are not a biblical literalist

2) You believe the bible is literally true

3) You believe in a literal God/Son/Holy spirit

4) You have a personal relationship with said god

 

I have asked you to differentiate between what parts of the bible you take literally and what parts you don't. You have not even attempted to answer my question. So let me say this.

 

1) You have no idea what you believe

2) You are a liar because you claim to be a literalist and not a literalist in the same breath

3) You are not very well acquainted with the bible and do not derive your theology from scripture

4) You have no purpose or reason to be on this thread beyond muddying the waters with your impotent arguments

 

The only thing I can conclude from our discourse so far is that you don't seem to be able to solidify your thoughts on god well enough to make any kind of significant argument. Perhaps if you decided to come to some sort of definite conclusion on what it is you believed in, and then focused your energies on trying to convey those thoughts to others in a clear and obvious way. I really don't think we have anything more to talk about if you are going to continue to walk in circles and back-peddle on your own arguments.

[Antlerman]

This all sounds oddly familiar to the past, with accusations of back peddling and double talk. What may help is to explain what is meant by taking the Bible literally, yet not being a literalist. This could be a simple case of semantics.

 

Do you mean Buddy that you think what truths are in the Bible are literally true - meaning spiritual axioms, etc. And that you don't think that everything in it is literally, directly, and authoritatively The Word of God ™? Meaning there's large latitude for human error and opinion? That love is preferable to hate is a literal truth, etc? Is this where the source of confusion is?

[JernJane]

I agree, emotions and actions are interrelated; intimately. I have a question, though, about feelings leading the way to actions. I think it's a choice, or perhaps should be.

 

You can choose how to act, I do not believe it is normally within a human being's power to choose how to feel (choosing how to feel is not the same as ignoring/suppressing one feeling and exalting/nurturing another). For the Bible-believing Christian though, he or she is still to blame for not loving Jesus more than anyone else in the whole wide world.

 

Doing what's right rather than what's most pleasant is commendable.

 

This is true, and it was the very reason why I decided to sober myself from the theological mind, in order to seek the truth. What you describe is what I would call the virtuous mix of honesty, courage and truth-seeking - values I have always held in high esteem and are also some of the values I wish to live by. What I found demanded that I said farewell to what I believed to be the only constant in my life; my shelter, my Eternal Father, my best friend, my Lord and Savior. In order to seek the truth, one needs a sober mind - that is - one needs to seek the truth with as near to an impartial state of mind as possible. If I seek to prove Christianity true, then I will find what I seek. If I choose to seek arguments against Christianity purely for the sake of debunking it, I will find that also. If I seek support for Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion, I will find support for it. My point is: Only with an honest heart and with a sober mind will a person have a single chance of finding the truth. Even with it, one may never find it, but that only makes it all the more worth the effort.

 

If I am a Christian, only seeking to reassure myself so that I may preach my beliefs with a good conscience, what honesty have I? None. Though my intentions may be good from the Christian point of view, I have no honesty, no dignity and no honour or self-respect. I have partiality and a subjective opinion for which I seek to find support that I may convince others. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with seeking support for one's opinions, but it is not the path that leads to truth. If Jesus truly is the Truth, as the gospels claim, then surely he cannot blame me; in seeking the truth I would be seeking him! If he is not the truth, then what have I to lose by exposing my faith to scrutiny?

 

There is, as you say, definitely an emotional connection between loving somebody and showing it. Absolutely. But are we primarily responders, feeling our way through life?

 

No, not at all. Anyone who does that would soon either find they need to trust their reason and mind - or go insane. However, the gospels call people to love Jesus so strongly that they - in comparison - hate their family. I think perhaps you are still thinking that I advocate that love is only feelings. It is, of course, not. But we are talking about a relationship between a human being and someone that human being cannot see, cannot feel, cannot hear, and should allegedly never presume to test God as that would be an insult to his existence, and yet - without a shred of evidence - it is ok for God to make insane demands, such as sacrificing one's own child (see the Old Testament, I'm not just talking about Isaac). It would be more justified for me to barge into a chat room on the internet, called myself God or his prophet and demanded that every single member of the chat room put all their possessions and their whole lives at my service. At least they'd know I was real.

[Deva]

Shall I then offer proof that I love God? My life is all I have to offer. ... and that he loves us? Again, all I have to offer is the experience of a lifetime. I expect you to disagree on the same basis.

 

No one can disprove someones else's subjective experience. It is true for them. I am sure Bigfoot and the aliens from the lightship in outer space are true for some people. That is why this line of argument is simply going nowhere.

 

I'm a bit of a traveler, and most of the professing Christians I've spoken with at length think similarly. I don't think the fundamentalist/evangelical's harsh message represents the good news Jesus was talking about.

 

Well then you travel in liberal, and if I remember correctly from your prior thread, non-denominational circles, or with people who have framed the whole plan of salvation in a different manner. Like it or not, the fundamentalist's message comes from the Bible. If you and others can and choose to reason it away, bully for you, but that approach doesn't work for most of us. That's why many of us are here. There is something called intellectual integrity.

 

I am sure you understand that we are not impressed by numbers, however great, of people who believe in a particular way.

[Deva]

This all sounds oddly familiar to the past, with accusations of back peddling and double talk.

 

Well it ought to sound familiar. All anyone needs to do is go back to the threads of approx. 1 year ago- "Life, the Universe and Everything" to have their memory refreshed on the back peddling and double talk. And it is and was real, not imagined. Dunany is spot on in his assessment.

 

Do you actually think you are going to get any straight answers to the remainder of your questions, Antlerman?

[Guest end3]

But to your greater point. I would avoid calling this "predestination". That's a theological term that says one's final disposition is planned out in advance. In biological terms, the better term would be "determinism". Theologically, "predestination" is more like "fatalism" which sees all events as pre-concluded. Determinism recognizes that there are contributing factors that more or less limit the range of choices we can make, but we are still free to operate choice in that context and the end is not necessarily a forgone conclusion.

 

Thanks for the clarifications as I am still learning, determinism...but the end, death, is the forgone conclusion.

 

How exactly your bringing up determinism relates to my criticism of Paul's seeing humans as worthless without Christ, I'm not sure?

Are you saying that I can't understand everything so I should leave room for a priest to interpret the Apostle Paul and tell me something that otherwise doesn't hold up to question? Again, Augustinian theology teaches man is inherently evil. That's a fact - period. There is not room for divine wiggle-room on that.

 

Yes, that is what I am saying somewhat....not a priest to interpret, but you. Why do you limit yourself to one biological level of existance? I don't think Paul is saying that humans are nothing without Christ, although we have proven ourselves as less than wonderful on several levels and occasions. I think the thing he is talking about is with regard to salvation.....no Christ, do not pass go, do not collect $200. And who cares about St. Augustine. He is not the judge -period. It's fine if you wish to subscribe to St. Augustine or determinism, but I am taking your declarative statements as limiting yourself to one end of the pool, the biological, the things that make sense to me end. Again, if you declare that there is no picture bigger than this snapshot we exist in, fine, I can accept that.

 

Here is where we will really disagree, because I think what you are stating offers only "fixes" on the here/now biological level of existance....and that is with a huge, qualifing, MAYBE. At no time in history would I speculate that peace, or fairness, or hope, is given to all in this level, limiting the concept to a natural existance. So in that regard, humanity IS largely crap. And two, on numerous times on this website, have I heard the belittlement of the uneducated and disfunctional, etc. Where is the justice in that? Where does your stance or statements offer hope to someone who lacks motivation or ability. Is it just coincedence that the Christ makes these people first? Christianity offers hope and change in this biological level to these, as well as offers a glimpse and hope of an existance in a place that challenges us to think not of this world.....a chance to exercise our kidneys (brainz).

 

Your examination of this world and discovering trends is ok with me, but I do believe we are more than that.

 

 

Good question.

 

Thanks

 

 

I guess you will be conceding the question, "What does Christianity Offer that no other....."

[Antlerman]

Do you actually think you are going to get any straight answers to the remainder of your questions, Antlerman?

Alas, I am an idealist. What else explains the effort?

 

How exactly your bringing up determinism relates to my criticism of Paul's seeing humans as worthless without Christ, I'm not sure?

Are you saying that I can't understand everything so I should leave room for a priest to interpret the Apostle Paul and tell me something that otherwise doesn't hold up to question? Again, Augustinian theology teaches man is inherently evil. That's a fact - period. There is not room for divine wiggle-room on that.

 

Yes, that is what I am saying somewhat....not a priest to interpret, but you. Why do you limit yourself to one biological level of existance?

I can't say that I do limit myself to a biological level of existence - stated in the way suggested. I am not a philosophical materialist in the strictest sense of the term. I'm a naturalist in many ways, but philosophically, I'm more an existentialist, which runs contrary to pure rationalist/materialist thought. I see meaning as something somewhat transcendent to the pure rational realm. But that doesn't mean necessarily something 'supernatural'. Transcendent, in that it's an ideal greater than the individual, or even possibly the whole of humanity extending into the fabric of existence itself - maybe.

 

So when I look at the things spoken of in religions, like Jehovah in its various versions, or Jesus in his various versions, or Krishna, or the Chakras, or whatever religious symbol one wishes to adopt, I see an expression of that which runs through our humanity and our perception of what life means. These are symbols, not end truths. They are not possible realities, they are reflections only.

 

Long explanation shortened, I don't limit myself at all. I have explored supernatural thought, and found it to be limiting to a "truth" that transcends that. In fact the supernatural I would say is extremely limiting on this level - it being much more on the level of superstition. How can I put it? God is bigger than God?

 

I don't think Paul is saying that humans are nothing without Christ, although we have proven ourselves as less than wonderful on several levels and occasions. I think the thing he is talking about is with regard to salvation.....no Christ, do not pass go, do not collect $200. And who cares about St. Augustine. He is not the judge -period.

I got the same response from Buddy bringing up Augustine. To ignore Augustine is to reject nearly 2000 years of Christian doctrine, which defined everything that Christianity is from that point forth. How can I possibly stress that more?

 

All I'd like to hear is this said, "Christianity is whatever we want it to be, and we're not concerned with what is considered doctrinally accurate." Say that, and then when can have a most interesting conversation!

 

So how do you feel about Pelagius?

 

It's fine if you wish to subscribe to St. Augustine or determinism, but I am taking your declarative statements as limiting yourself to one end of the pool, the biological, the things that make sense to me end. Again, if you declare that there is no picture bigger than this snapshot we exist in, fine, I can accept that.

Again, I don't subscribe necessarily to determinism, and most definitely NOT St. Augustine. "All things are possible" is an axiom I subscribe to. But again, finding value in a belief of the supernatural has shown itself to be less than beneficial. In fact it was more a hindrance than anything else, like worrying about walking under a ladder, or stepping on a crack. Nonsense waste of energy.

 

The world is vastly more open to possibility than the prison of that sort of thought - thought that worries about displeasing a god named Jehovah, for instance.

 

At no time in history would I speculate that peace, or fairness, or hope, is given to all in this level, limiting the concept to a natural existance. So in that regard, humanity IS largely crap.

First I would never say "Given" as that suggest it comes from some external source. The concept of fairness however is pretty universal. You of course have those who violate that rule, but it's recognized as an infraction - not just by humans, but other species as well! We have survived as a species because in the majority of cases we do value cooperation over greed.

 

We create all sorts of social motivations to discourage greed because of the benefit of cooperation. We create mythologies that demonize greed in order to discourage it. such as 'serving the devil', etc. The point is that if most people didn't see fairness and peace as more desirable, we would not be in existence today! So it's not crap at all. It's the tiny minority that don't cooperate, and are either imprisoned, killed, or perhaps become warlords, or somehow get elected to office in the government.

 

Paul is a pessimist. It's a human tendency to focus on the smelling pile of dung on the ground in front of you, while a vast and beautiful landscape is before you.

 

 

And two, on numerous times on this website, have I heard the belittlement of the uneducated and disfunctional, etc. Where is the justice in that?

I certainly don't intend to do that myself - certainly not on a personal level. I may scoff at the ignorant who pose as authoritative, such as the Creationist crowd, but I certainly don't mean to belittle anyone who isn't educated. I've said this before, and will say again that I value a sincere heart vastly more than someone's IQ. In fact I have and will reject someone who is more intelligent that I am, if I see their humanity lacks substance.

 

 

Where does your stance or statements offer hope to someone who lacks motivation or ability.

I had to think about this. I would answer saying that everyone has the ability to believe in themselves. What aids in that? The support of others. Friendship. Community. Ideals. Can that come from religion? Sure - if it's not something that's about following rules, but more about encouraging you to believe in the potentials that exist inside you. Do some forms of Christianity offer that? Yes, I'm sure, but certaintly NOT the stuff we've been exposed to. Certainly not the sort of Christianity that is literalistic, legalistic, fundamentalist, and even Augustinian - namely traditional, orthodox Christianity.

 

Beyond that, I'd say there are a list of philosophies that promote a healthy outlook on life. In the end, it's not Christ or your wife, or your best friend that makes you whole - it's you. This is where I don't agree with Paul, and why in no small way I am not a Christian.

 

Good question.

 

Thanks

 

 

I guess you will be conceding the question, "What does Christianity Offer that no other....."

Not at all. I had someone more determined about their doctrines than you concede it to me. I'm willing to see that some forms of Christianity can be helpful to some people, but can your doctrines allow you to acknowledge that truth is greater than God?

[Guest end3]

You are flat out killing me man.

 

 

"I see meaning as something somewhat transcendent to the pure rational realm."

 

Would you please elaborate on qualities of a "pure rational realm"?

 

"These are symbols, not end truths. They are not possible realities, they are reflections only. "

 

How can you discusss a pure rational realm and not consider Christ a possibility?

 

"Long explanation shortened, I don't limit myself at all. I have explored supernatural thought, and found it to be limiting to a "truth" that transcends that. In fact the supernatural I would say is extremely limiting on this level - it being much more on the level of superstition. How can I put it? God is bigger than God?"

 

Again, I am going to have to wait for your pure reality description before I can compare here.

 

"I got the same response from Buddy bringing up Augustine. To ignore Augustine is to reject nearly 2000 years of Christian doctrine, which defined everything that Christianity is from that point forth. How can I possibly stress that more?"

 

You explore the world for yourself, but then hold up St. Augustine? ...but I do see your point that he was an influence. If the law is now written on our hearts, and we are all unique individuals, wouldn't one assume the interpretation to be unique? So why do you assume that the freedom in Christ dictates a legalistic, orthodoxical reponse? Isn't Buddy an example of freedom without regard to legalism? And it seems that it really pisses people off that he is ok in his understanding. Did not Christ make this all possible?

 

The larger theme seems to be one of salvation. I am near certain that all that is asked is that we have faith that Christ did what he did. Within reason, I think it is possible to search without reservation, pursue life, and bring joy to others with near disregard for today's religious methods. So I don't know that the issue is all the small bickering, as it is something else. What is it about salvation....the way the message was presented, the people??? I would really like to know.

 

"All I'd like to hear is this said, "Christianity is whatever we want it to be, and we're not concerned with what is considered doctrinally accurate." Say that, and then when can have a most interesting conversation! "

 

I think I just did....

 

"So how do you feel about Pelagius?"

 

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius(ca. 354 – ca. 420/440). It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which God called very good), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),[1] Jesus' execution is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christian theology.

 

IMO today, I think humanity was fine in the garden...good. I think we are capable of choosing our paths, and devine aid is given in this walk. I don't think we have full control over our salvation in the fact that without Christ, we have no salvation.

 

""All things are possible" is an axiom I subscribe to. But again, finding value in a belief of the supernatural has shown itself to be less than beneficial. In fact it was more a hindrance than anything else, like worrying about walking under a ladder, or stepping on a crack. Nonsense waste of energy. "

 

So you are saying that it might be in how the message was given to you?

 

"The world is vastly more open to possibility than the prison of that sort of thought - thought that worries about displeasing a god named Jehovah, for instance."

 

I do see your point here, but when devine "discipline" has come my way, it has made me a better. Would you rather answer to a supernatural or pure rational realm reality than man's?

 

 

"First I would never say "Given" as that suggest it comes from some external source. The concept of fairness however is pretty universal. You of course have those who violate that rule, but it's recognized as an infraction - not just by humans, but other species as well! We have survived as a species because in the majority of cases we do value cooperation over greed. "

 

I used given as man gives to another man, never has to the degree you are speculating.

 

"We create all sorts of social motivations to discourage greed because of the benefit of cooperation. We create mythologies that demonize greed in order to discourage it. such as 'serving the devil', etc. The point is that if most people didn't see fairness and peace as more desirable, we would not be in existence today! So it's not crap at all. It's the tiny minority that don't cooperate, and are either imprisoned, killed, or perhaps become warlords, or somehow get elected to office in the government. "

 

Noble of you to give humanity this much credit....but not buying it for a minute.

 

"Paul is a pessimist. It's a human tendency to focus on the smelling pile of dung on the ground in front of you, while a vast and beautiful landscape is before you."

 

If you are not hurt by what you witness everyday in this world, then I am certainly worried for you. But AM, I do see your point that there is certainly an alternative. All I guess I can say is "go man go" with your ideas for humanity.

 

I had to think about this. I would answer saying that everyone has the ability to believe in themselves. What aids in that? The support of others. Friendship. Community. Ideals. Can that come from religion? Sure - if it's not something that's about following rules, but more about encouraging you to believe in the potentials that exist inside you. Do some forms of Christianity offer that? Yes, I'm sure, but certaintly NOT the stuff we've been exposed to. Certainly not the sort of Christianity that is literalistic, legalistic, fundamentalist, and even Augustinian - namely traditional, orthodox Christianity.

 

verily

 

"Beyond that, I'd say there are a list of philosophies that promote a healthy outlook on life. In the end, it's not Christ or your wife, or your best friend that makes you whole - it's you. This is where I don't agree with Paul, and why in no small way I am not a Christian."

 

Who is you?

 

"I'm willing to see that some forms of Christianity can be helpful to some people, but can your doctrines allow you to acknowledge that truth is greater than God?"

 

Sounds like you have practiced, but I wouldn't mind the discussion.....btw, what doctrine?

[BuddyFerris]

This all sounds oddly familiar to the past, with accusations of back peddling and double talk. What may help is to explain what is meant by taking the Bible literally, yet not being a literalist. This could be a simple case of semantics.

 

Do you mean Buddy that you think what truths are in the Bible are literally true - meaning spiritual axioms, etc. And that you don't think that everything in it is literally, directly, and authoritatively The Word of God ? Meaning there's large latitude for human error and opinion? That love is preferable to hate is a literal truth, etc? Is this where the source of confusion is?

CNN this morning describes a young girl who became a suicide bomber; her mother said she wanted to die for god. That's unthinkable to us. From her family's point of view, it was a reasonable decision, not the fanaticism it appears to be to us.

 

With similarly irrational intensity, fundamentalists and others will use the bible as the tool of division; to distinguish themselves as 'in' and all others as 'out'. In the process, the tool is bent and mangled, phrases extracted and used for purposes opposite to their author's context. These perhaps sincere if extreme folks hold up the book and their own private interpretation as the dividing line between the sheep and the goats, if you will. Even some here have insisted that these bent ideas are biblically accurate. Literalists, fundamentalists, extremists, straining at a gnat .... They're philosophically more closely aligned with the Pharisees than with Jesus.

 

You may be right Antlerman. We may be semantically challenged, as has happened before. I believe that the bible is inspired, filled with incredible truths, but never intended by God or the human authors to be handled by readers as though it were magic. Tell you what, let's let your description suffice for now, AM. "... truths ...in the Bible are literally true - meaning spiritual axioms, etc. ... you don't think that everything in it is literally, directly, and authoritatively The Word of God ? Meaning there's large latitude for human error and opinion? That love is preferable to hate is a literal truth, etc?"

 

That will do for now. Thanks.

 

Off to the jungle this morning. Hired a young fellow as a tour guide for the historical sites. Don't actually need a guide, but the fellow is trying to work rather than beg.

 

Later,

Buddy

[JernJane]

"All I'd like to hear is this said, "Christianity is whatever we want it to be, and we're not concerned with what is considered doctrinally accurate." Say that, and then when can have a most interesting conversation! "

 

You've just made a very revealing statement.

 

It may look like humility, but at what a cost! To be concerned with accuracy is to be concerned with what is correct, in other words, the closest one can come to what is actually true. Any person - Christian or otherwise - who claims that accuracy is not important, is saying that truth is not important. What is important for such a person, is subjective experiences. How you arrive there, whether by the way of compromise or simply do not care much about what's true, may differ for person to person, but they all share this one thing: They don't think truth is important.

 

I, on the other hand, do think truth is important. That is why I am no longer a Christian.

 

Also: if you state that accuracy isn't important, I wonder - where do you draw the line? What makes Muhammed a Muslim and Augustine a Christian if doctrinal accuracy bears no importance? Any Christian would say: "Because Augustine believed in the Trinity, Jesus' divinity, in the atoning sacrifice for sins and the ressurection." But what makes you claim that accuracy is more important for any these doctrines than for, say, the virgin birth or the status for Jesus as a messenger from God?

[MathGeek]

CNN this morning describes a young girl who became a suicide bomber; her mother said she wanted to die for god. That's unthinkable to us. From her family's point of view, it was a reasonable decision, not the fanaticism it appears to be to us.

 

With similarly irrational intensity, fundamentalists and others will use the bible as the tool of division; to distinguish themselves as 'in' and all others as 'out'. In the process, the tool is bent and mangled, phrases extracted and used for purposes opposite to their author's context. These perhaps sincere if extreme folks hold up the book and their own private interpretation as the dividing line between the sheep and the goats, if you will. Even some here have insisted that these bent ideas are biblically accurate. Literalists, fundamentalists, extremists, straining at a gnat .... They're philosophically more closely aligned with the Pharisees than with Jesus.

 

Be careful, Buddy. You are starting to sound a little like Sam Harris.

 

Not to make it appear as such, but you are sounding like a broken record.

[Guest end3]

JernJane,

 

The last post I made....my comments are in bold letters. The one you accredited to me, was in fact Antlerman's. I apologize for my poor editing abilities. I need to enroll....sorry, but thanks for the comment.

 

END3

[Antlerman]

All I'd like to hear is this said, "Christianity is whatever we want it to be, and we're not concerned with what is considered doctrinally accurate." Say that, and then when can have a most interesting conversation!

 

You've just made a very revealing statement.

 

It may look like humility, but at what a cost! To be concerned with accuracy is to be concerned with what is correct, in other words, the closest one can come to what is actually true. Any person - Christian or otherwise - who claims that accuracy is not important, is saying that truth is not important. What is important for such a person, is subjective experiences. How you arrive there, whether by the way of compromise or simply do not care much about what's true, may differ for person to person, but they all share this one thing: They don't think truth is important.

Hi JJ. Correcting your quote of End3 here. It was actually me who said that. End3 put quotes around it instead because he overran the limit of the 10 quote limit per post, so it didn't have my name at the header of it. So to address what I meant in response to the objections you raised...

 

You raise good points that I'd like to respond to. In a nutshell what I meant is that if these religious stories, figures, etc are taken as symbolic, then to argue truth about them entirely miss the point of them. It's like arguing about the accuracy of a color applied to an image by an artist. Those are expressive choices, not reproductive efforts. There is no right or wrong to it. I write music, and someone who is a music major once said to me about a piano piece of mine, "You can't run the melody in unison notes an octave apart like that. That's against the rules". My response was simple, "I just did". It worked. It still works in that piece. I wouldn't have written it any other way.

 

Accuracy is only applicable to scientific, historical pursuits if you're trying to talk about events of facts. But if you're talking symbolic representations or expressions of something subjective - a response, an ideal, a hope, a desire, an aspiration, then mythology can be a means to express and communicate it. The ones who try to sell it as 'factual' are utterly missing the point of it. Those who argue against its accuracy are in a sense dignifying their point and themselves looking at it in a light that it's not about. Of course it's not accurate scientifically. The real question to me should be: Is it relevant?

 

Does it have enough flexibility to work as a system of myth to address those things that people look to it for - increasingly more social/personal meaning. Let me put it this way. I didn't leave Christianity because it was inaccurate per se, it's more because it didn't work for me. I can then argue my reasons why it didn't work. One being that it tried to posit itself over science and violated my need for intellectual honesty. But frankly, that would be the people who taught it that way that did that. Another reason would be because it tied itself to moralities that were relevant to a culture far removed from our own, and failed to speak to the issues of ours. It didn't offer understanding and guidance in making informed and relevant choices, but instead dealt with them through suppression and compliance to outdated lifestyles of a dead society, imposing rules on dress, etc.

 

There are other reasons I can list, but the point is that it wasn't based solely on it not be true in a literal understanding. It's ancient mythology. When I argue against its accuracy (which I will), it's really arguing against the idea it's supposed to be. There's a difference. Of course it's not accurate. Is it relevant or meaningful as a symbolic system? That's the real question.

 

To throw a real wrench into understanding here: science itself functions as a mythology, and the same rules apply, whether its relevant or not. Those who look to it for accuracy, better only be doing so for it's functional aspects. But the mistake I see happen is people taking it's precision of explanation as the possible beacon of truth for the 'answers' to all that is human. It's not that science positions itself that way, but some approach it that way. (I'm speaking in terms of myth in language from the point of view of semioticians like Roland Barthes ).

 

Does that clarify? BTW, this does pertain to the notion of "personal relationship with god" because it addresses the function of the system in someone's life.