What Is Christian Orthodoxy?

[TenthDoctor]

The stuff is interwoven so starting multiple threads is counter-productive. You are going to have to knuckle down and do some diligent research, my counter apologetics are intense and if you think mere textual criticism is the key, that is a very shallow approach as I do not take the bible as authoritative you have to dig deeper.

 

I am happy to summarize what I know but I am not going to provide links - I don't have them any more and many sites I had my "teachings" on have shut down and I have no back ups. I have 29 versions of the bible electronically with concordances but I have no interest in loading that nonsense on my PC again, I make use of bible gateway now and commentaries from the blue bible where necessary.

 

All right -- well -- I'll continue with this discussion so long as this doesn't completely turn into a me needing to defend everything that I believe. We're really talking about my specific beliefs now rather than Christian orthodoxy.

 

I've just been a little frustrated with this conversation because I think it deviates from the original post, and also because I feel like you've been trying your best to shoot down all my beliefs without acknowledging the fact that these are my beliefs. It's like just because you no longer believe, you don't think anyone has any right to hold to these beliefs. It just gets me very frustrated and angry at times.

 

I think I can understand how it must feel for many ex-Christians on this site when a Christian comes along and doesn't acknowledge your positions as being valid views.

 

There must be a way for us to discuss these things without anyone feeling like their views are invalid.

 

I'd like to go for something like this, if we continue to discuss these matters.

[TenthDoctor]

Getting into side debates should be with an eye to bring it back to the main topic of the thread. It's easy to loose sight of that and derail the whole thread into a debate about the merits of the Trinity doctrine, "yes it is, no it's not". If a side discussion comes in, it should be stated how it does relate to the main topic, otherwise it should be a separate discussion.

 

Any point to it that I can see would be to show how there are legitimate alternative understandings, and how that itself challenges any claim of "right thinking" or "orthodox" teachings as somehow authoritative over others. But it should not turn into a "No, I'm right and you're wrong about the Trinity" discussion.

 

What I would like personally is some response to what I posted this morning that goes right to that. Here's the link to that post: http://www.ex-christ...post__p__712385 The underlying question is on what basis do we grant authority to others as to tell someone what is "right thinking" in light of those factors most people don't even consider?

 

Keep on topic.

 

Okay....I think I need to do a better job of making sure that my answers to LivingLife point back to the topic.

 

If you or any other moderator would like to separate out any of the posts in this thread to their own topics, maybe that would also work. I don't know.

 

I'm sorry -- I think the fact that it got off topic was mainly my fault. I'll try to do a better job with relating it back to orthodoxy.

 

All right -- I'll answer your post next.

[mymistake]

Now, if others in this thread say that what LivingLife and I have been talking about isn't off topic, I will address more points. So what do other people reading this thread think?

 

I think it's absurd for you to expect or demand of others to recognize your beliefs as a legitimate viewpoint. You might as well demand that public schools teach Flat Earth Theory along side science so that the children can decide for themselves which of these two legitimate viewpoints they want to believe. In the real world an idea's merit is the only thing that makes it legitimate. (It's telling how religious orthodoxy doesn't work that way.) If an idea has merit then it can stand alone against all attacks. If an idea falls apart upon examination then it lacks merit.

 

Regarding the main topic I find orthodox is often used as an excuse for religious intolerance. That other sect over there is different than our church therefore we are orthodox and they are a serious concern about doctrine being taught in some churches.

[Antlerman]

Okay....I think I need to do a better job of making sure that my answers to LivingLife point back to the topic.

 

If you or any other moderator would like to separate out any of the posts in this thread to their own topics, maybe that would also work. I don't know.

 

I'm sorry -- I think the fact that it got off topic was mainly my fault. I'll try to do a better job with relating it back to orthodoxy.

 

All right -- I'll answer your post next.

You're such a polite person. I truly respect that. I wasn't intending to place blame as I know how easy it is to get side-tracked into issues, especially when they go into something personal such as one's religious beliefs.

 

BTW, I do respect your beliefs as legitimate. My hope is for broader perspectives and understanding of what those are and why people hold them. Humans are extraordinarily complex, and to try to over-simplify life into black and white perspectives is to me the ultimate "woo-woo" completely disconnected from reality.

[LivingLife]

My understanding for why He waits to fix things is for the sake of those who do not yet believe in Him.

Why wait, is the world not screwed up enough for his liking? How bad does it have to get? The truth, he does nothing because he does not exist. He only exists in the collective minds of believers.

Sigh..I could give you verses in the Bible that show why I think that Jesus teaches hell, but I'm guessing that it would be a waste of my time.

Probably would as I can refute the entire hell teaching going back to early church fathers (mostly eastern orthodox thought) that clearly shows what is taken literally is in fact allegorical and/or a deliberate translation error. Most if not all jesus' mentions of hell refer to Gehenna. What was Gehenna? Essentially a rubish dump outside of Jerusalem formally known as the valley of Hinnom (look it up and see if I am lying) This is what it looks like today

 

See any eternal fires? Thought not. Now go read those verses again and imagine a burning rubbish dump back then, This was the hell jesus spoke of (allegedly)

That is your belief that Jesus is not coming back ever. My belief is that He is coming back. We clearly are not in agreement on this matter.

It is a false hope. He has failed to deliver on prayers, failed in so many ways. If jesus were a product, you would return it to the store and ask for a refund, false advertising, amazing that jesus or god get a free pass on this.

Show me how my personal beliefs directly conflict with the Christian creeds. Thank you.

I think I have covered it in earlier responses.

I'm sorry that there was hate and racism in the churches in South Africa. It was wrong of them to deny Gandhi or anyone else access inside a church, just based on skin color.

No need to be sorry, it happened at the same time your side had "Negroes" as second class citizens not allowed to vote had to ride at the back of the bus or separate ablutions and water fountains. Our histories are parallel, only difference we invented a word to describe our racism.

 

I mentioned this already. TD Jakes' church is predominantly black, Jesse du Plantis' church is predominantly white as are Creflo Dollar - black and many others that are either white or black (all evangelical) hell even the TBN praise-a-thons they have black time preachers with black audiences and white time preachers with white audiences. TBN is the network we have in SA and God Channel but we see stuff you do not see much like CNN USA is different to CNN international.

 

You say you do not follow TBN but as far as evangelicals goes, they are just a mall version of the corner cafe evangelicals we do not see, no need to pretend that the smaller churches are different, they are not. Even here, the pastor that drives a skadonk is not going to portray any concept of "biblical prosperity" and it is all justified as he is after all the anointed man of gawd that is why they have the best cars, the best clothes the best houses.

 

If you say this is not so then all the ex-Cs here are liars including the ones from Europe and Aus and NZ as they all report the same stuff. Hillsong? Vineyard? Rhema? (pick your brand)

 

TMK, there do not seem to be too many folk from the olde protestant type reform churches here like the Presbyterians (possibly) or the Dutch reformed types here in SA. AFIK, most here are ex evangelical and a few ex Catholics. That said, Catholics there and here seem to differ as the ones here do not seem to have the same issues that upsets the US folk.

 

But where to draw the line? Whose standard? There is none.

[TenthDoctor]

From what I can see in this thread, it appears that--like beauty--orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the mind of the believer. From the perspective of scholarly religious studies, I think Christian orthodoxy normally is as stated in the creeds TenthDoctor posted on the first page of this thread. In a nutshell: Belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, Jesus born of a virgin, died and buried, risen the third day, sitting at the right hand of God to judge the quick and the dead.

 

Other variations of the theme of Christianity that I call less that orthodox are ideas that see the Jesus story as a parable for life, the Cosmic Christ, Jesus as myth, no afterlife, etc. And then there's the more blurred situations where people believe in hell as non-burning separation from God, that Christianity is not a religion--it's a relationship, the spiritualization of orthodoxy, i.e. orthodoxy is faithfulness and/or a spiritual quest--all of these people may hold the literal biblical narrative more or less but they have strayed from the "old time religion" as preached for fifteen to eighteen centuries.

 

Some posts in this thread also sought for the origins of the creeds. I was one of them. I don't think these are the normally accepted "orthodox Christian" doctrines that made it into the canon of the NT and theology texts accepted across the centuries and preached throughout the world until 1500 and well beyond. Unitarianism arose in the 17 or 1800s. Since then, so did many dozens (hundreds or thousands?) of other denominations world-wide, but especially in the United States.

 

At one time, Germany was the birthplace of new ideas. Splinter sects seem to have been around all the time--at least, since the Reformation beginning about 1500--when they found a way not to get themselves killed by the powerful State Churches.

 

The State Churches obviously thought they had the right belief and that it was their sacred duty to purify the land of heretics. On the other hand, splinter groups such as the Waldensians and Anabaptists felt so confident that they had the correct beliefs that they were willing to endure imprisonment, inhumane torture, and martyr deaths rather than compromise their beliefs.

 

Who, I ask, had orthodox beliefs? And who is qualified to judge if the Pope is not? I certainly don't trust a person who obviously wrote her own statement of faith in the absence of fellow-believers. That is about as unorthodox as it is possible to get. Sorry, TD, this is not an attack on you or your beliefs but my personal opinion on what is orthodox based on my knowledge of official church doctrine and NT teachings.

 

The New Testament and official church doctrine emphasize the absolute importance of Church, and the fellowship of like-minded believers. I likewise disagree that pastors who edit their faith statements without the endorsement of their congregations or fellow pastors are orthodox. Nothing should be done by private interpretation, the NT teaches.

 

So yeah, who is qualified to judge orthodox beliefs if the Pope & company is not? The people the Pope killed for their faith? But Catholics died, too, for their faith.

This whole post is very well stated. I've put in bold what I feel was the original point I was hoping to see get fleshed out in such a discussion. Orthodoxy is the truth to those from a certain perspective. There is not only one perspective on anything. The scholar says the Bible means this, the mystic says it means this. Who is right? Why not both? If someone is standing on a ladder and they look at the world from rung number 12 and describe what they are seeing, it is a valid take on reality from their altitude. Another person on that same ladder is at run 62. He describes the world he sees from up there and it differs from the gentleman on rung 12. Is he wrong?

 

Here comes the point. To the man on rung 62 he can hear the description of the world from the man on rung 12 and say, 'yes, that's true from someone looking at the world on rung 12. He can remember that himself as he had to step onto rung 12 before he got to rung 62. The man on rung 12 however has never climbed to rung 62 yet and seen the world from that altitude, and when he hears the description from someone at that rung he imagines them to be crazy, "woo-woo", a sinner, or a heretic, rejecting all rung 12'ism truths!

 

My point is that for any one committee of humans to make proclamations about a non-linear reality from their perspectives on what they are observing and interpreting, and then make judgments that this is truth and this is error for all others is in fact incredibly short-sighted. And, that short-sightedness comes from what I would say is simply a lack of altitude or depth of experience. They don't see a rung above them because that reality is outside their experience. The world needs to look and feel and be believed in accord with their perspectives. They are therefore busy making themselves the arbiters of truth for others. They are placing themselves in the position of God in some ultimate judgement, from their perspective and that place on the ladder.

 

Orthodox really means what is acceptable for that group's perspective. No group can claim the perspective of God, and judge for others truth from that altitude unless they themselves have adapted to that level of seeing the world, not in little glimpses, but in a full positional shift of perspective. And I'll dare say that at that point, you would have sufficient enough altitude to say that all these 'orthodoxies' are truths to those on the lower rungs, partial perspectives, reality's truths suited to them on their rung on that ladder. Ultimate Truth embraces all truths. Orthodoxy is relative.

 

This was what my original point I was driving at.

 

I will acknowledge that orthodoxy has to be seen as the truth from a certain perspective. I see this as being necessary. Yes, there are going to be those who disagree, especially within the Christian belief system because of how many viewpoints are expressed. So each Christian group defines for itself what is and what isn't orthodoxy, false teaching, false practice, and heresy.

 

Each congregation, and each Christian has to have a working definition of what it means to be Christian and what the "right beliefs are."

 

Each non-Christian, ex-Christian, and atheist also has their own definition of what being part of a religion is, as has been evidenced in this thread.

 

Still, I would hope that those both inside and outside of Christianity could come up with a list of beliefs that they think are Christian beliefs that are general beliefs regarding the Christian faith. Otherwise, the terms "Christianity" and "Christian" are essentially meaningless. Maybe it has gotten to that point already in our culture where "Christian" has become totally meaningless.

 

On the other hand, because of various experiences that people have had, and because of the media, certain Christian groups have kind of become the "stereotype Christian," so some people have very specific ideas about what a "Christian," but it may be very different from what the majority of Christians would want to be portrayed as.

 

Regarding the ladder rung idea -- well, on some matters, I do think that would be the case. However.....maybe we need to discuss what the boundaries of the latter are. What are the real essential beliefs of the Christian faith? What are the non-essentials?

 

For me personally, the creeds lay out what the essentials are.

 

The Non-essentials would be the rungs on a latter....although the apologeticsindex.org website that I copied and pasted their entry for orthodoxy from point out that just because a church seems to hold to orthodox doctrine, it isn't necessarily the case that they actually do so in practice.

 

Certain beliefs in the non-essential area can be harmful to the followers as well, such as abusive practices. I don't think the followers would necessarily go to hell for practicing these things, but they can make people fall. Perhaps these rungs would be loose. People could still climb up and down them, but in time, the rung will break off, causing the person to fall.

 

There would have to be some rungs that weren't even on the ladder -- contradicting viewpoints. If we take the Trinity as an example, how can trinitarism, unitarism, Jesus Onlyism, and tritheism all be on the same ladder? Along the same line, how could someone who believes that Jesus was a created being be on the same ladder with someone who believes that Jesus was both fully God and fully man? These viewpoints are all completely contradictory in relation to each other.

 

How could someone who claims that Jesus never rose from the dead be on the same ladder as someone who claims that He was raised from the dead?

[LivingLife]

Sorry my posts over rode others interjections, I was not getting notifications of new posts.

 

TD no need to point replay to the last batch - it is not a battle of the wits and I have tried to come back to the OP but there is just too much info to share.

 

I will now respond to your post above

[Antlerman]

This was all a good response and I'm grateful to be able to discuss this further, offering some clarification.

 

I will acknowledge that orthodoxy has to be seen as the truth from a certain perspective. I see this as being necessary. Yes, there are going to be those who disagree, especially within the Christian belief system because of how many viewpoints are expressed. So each Christian group defines for itself what is and what isn't orthodoxy, false teaching, false practice, and heresy.

 

 

Each congregation, and each Christian has to have a working definition of what it means to be Christian and what the "right beliefs are."

 

Each non-Christian, ex-Christian, and atheist also has their own definition of what being part of a religion is, as has been evidenced in this thread.

I'm going to need to expand on what I said initially in order to help understand this in the framework that I am. Please bear with me a little.

 

I would like to link you to another topic I started sometime ago that touches on where I'm going. It addressed different understandings of how religions is approached and its role in people's lives. It is not a single thing, but many things. If you only read the first post in this link, it will give us some common ground for discussion. I'll be referencing that going forward. Link: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/42387-what-is-religion/page__view__findpost__p__618667

 

In my post in this thread you are responding to I referred to rungs on a ladder. I'm am referring to developmental levels. Another analogy would be that of floors in a building. I will be referring to vertical direction and horizontal direction. When we speak of things like "the right way to interpret the Bible," we are not speaking about differences between rung 12 and rung 62, but rather arguments about people's perspectives on rung 12, in a horizontal direction. Vertical change offers and entirely new perspective from a change in altitude.

 

Horizontal differences are what are trying to navigate the furniture on the 12 floor of the building, moving it around, changing it to see what new knowledge of that floor can be gleaned. That act is part of a process of development, expanding understanding on that level to master that floor. Eventually however 'answers' found on that floor become exhausted to the question, or pull to something that that floor's furniture simply doesn't address. Then suddenly, your in an elevator and you go up to another floor, and the entire questions shift. There is new furniture to navigate and master horizontally. In other words, to help you translate the world at that level.

 

I'll continue as I further respond...

 

Still, I would hope that those both inside and outside of Christianity could come up with a list of beliefs that they think are Christian beliefs that are general beliefs regarding the Christian faith. Otherwise, the terms "Christianity" and "Christian" are essentially meaningless. Maybe it has gotten to that point already in our culture where "Christian" has become totally meaningless.

Yep, me thinks the furniture on that level is becoming outgrown. People are ready to find that elevator. What you see in Christianity in all these aberrations are a symptom of the system itself being adequate to help translate horizontally the present world. Dreams of finding truth in the past is a failed Romanticism.

 

Regarding the ladder rung idea -- well, on some matters, I do think that would be the case. However.....maybe we need to discuss what the boundaries of the latter are. What are the real essential beliefs of the Christian faith? What are the non-essentials?

That entire set of questions change at a new altitude (to continue with that metaphor). Your questions speak to the "essentials" of that belief in a horizontal direction to help those on that level navigate that floor of the building. It is only pertinent to those on floor 12, so to speak. From floor 30 the set of questions change. It becomes things like what is the value of religious symbolism in human experience, not whether or not its true in a historical/scientific context. In fact to 'disprove' Christian faith, or any religious faith on that basis is itself not really thinking that deeply. Of course it fails the test of science. But just like my criticism religious committees the judge of all higher truth (while they themselves lack any perspective beyond that floor), I equally chide those who look to Science with a capital S as the new Holy See, the validators of true doctrine or heresy, the new Orthodoxy. I reject that for the same reasons I do religion's claim to Supreme Arbitrator of "Right Thinking™."

 

For me personally, the creeds lay out what the essentials are.

As an aside, on that horizontal translational level, I would say that is legitimate for those that are trying to understand the world in that particular corner of the room on that floor. There are also other ways to understand that floor as well that are equally as legitimate. Please refer to R8 definition in the other topic I linked to. This is why and how I can and do acknowledge your views as legitimate. They are working for you to help you navigate the world with degrees of success. However, to recognize that is to also recognize the legitimacy of systems for others. As you begin to see that, in fact you begin to move to another floor altogether. And that world has it's own horizontal truths.

 

The Non-essentials would be the rungs on a latter....although the apologeticsindex.org website that I copied and pasted their entry for orthodoxy from point out that just because a church seems to hold to orthodox doctrine, it isn't necessarily the case that they actually do so in practice.

As I mention translating the world, I should also add that there is illegitimate practices as well. If that practice leads to dysfunction, to dissolution of someone's personal growth, then it needs to be jettisoned. Where your views right now are legitimate for you, for me that would not be. They would cause me to be unable to navigate the world I've moved into. And I'm saying that they were legitimate for me when I used them, but I have moved to where thinking that way would not help me now.

 

Certain beliefs in the non-essential area can be harmful to the followers as well, such as abusive practices. I don't think the followers would necessarily go to hell for practicing these things, but they can make people fall. Perhaps these rungs would be loose. People could still climb up and down them, but in time, the rung will break off, causing the person to fall.

To clarify my meaning of ladder and rungs, once you go up to another rung your perception has changed to the point you can no longer go back. Think of it in terms of how you thought of the world as a child. Can you know as an adult go back to that 12 year girl you used to be? Yet, there was a legitimate understanding of the world for you as a 12 year old that helped you realize the emerging world of a young adult. That 12 year old is still there, but she became integrated into a mature adult. You can't go up and down on that ladder, even though habits do pop up and behaviors and modes of thinking that are from an early stage of development.

 

There would have to be some rungs that weren't even on the ladder -- contradicting viewpoints. If we take the Trinity as an example, how can trinitarism, unitarism, Jesus Onlyism, and tritheism all be on the same ladder? Along the same line, how could someone who believes that Jesus was a created being be on the same ladder with someone who believes that Jesus was both fully God and fully man? These viewpoints are all completely contradictory in relation to each other.

 

How could someone who claims that Jesus never rose from the dead be on the same ladder as someone who claims that He was raised from the dead?

The question of the Trinity is a different question when you aren't trying to say "Yes it is, no it's not". I could elaborate, but I'm out of time....

[LivingLife]

I will acknowledge that orthodoxy has to be seen as the truth from a certain perspective. I see this as being necessary. Yes, there are going to be those who disagree, especially within the Christian belief system because of how many viewpoints are expressed. So each Christian group defines for itself what is and what isn't orthodoxy, false teaching, false practice, and heresy.

Partially agree

Each congregation, and each Christian has to have a working definition of what it means to be Christian and what the "right beliefs are."

If this is the case and if I understand what you are saying, then my whole argument in the previous posts stands. It is precisely this that has/had your knickers in a knot concerning the other churches. If they are wrong, what makes your's right and visa versa? See there is no standard and unlike antlerman, I am very much a B&W guy when it comes to religion, it should not defy logic and it should not be contradictory.

 

In the town I live in, they tried to get all the xian churches to work together. This was spearheaded by a concerned member of my last church and meetings were held and he almost went nuts trying to keep this thing going. The motive? To win more souls for jesus. They got a xian band to perform at the local HS called MIC (members in christ) and they finally agreed to have members there from each church to deal with the post alter call so that there would not be a stealing of sheep. It was quite funny to see an uncle there in a 3 piece suit (he had a real passion) and the music was pretty much heavy metal. That was the only joint effort at evangelising. The problem is with churches like the DR and RC churches, they have catechisms and as such no alter calls. They were not prepared to let that tradition go in lieu of the evangelical approach of a sinner's prayer. So it fizzled out to joint sunday evening services 6 times a year between us and the DR church and we charismatics were not allowed to do the gifts of tongues or prophesy for fear of "offending" the more conservative DR folk, no alter calls so we really were not compromising but relegating on our "creed" if you will. That fizzled out completely and everyone is doing their own thing again. The one good thing that came out of it was that the inter church slander and gossip did die down, we are a small town. Of course the JW's and old and new apostolic churches were not included as they are all heretics, everyone thinks they are nuts

 

Where are the core values?

Each non-Christian, ex-Christian, and atheist also has their own definition of what being part of a religion is, as has been evidenced in this thread.

 

Still, I would hope that those both inside and outside of Christianity could come up with a list of beliefs that they think are Christian beliefs that are general beliefs regarding the Christian faith. Otherwise, the terms "Christianity" and "Christian" are essentially meaningless. Maybe it has gotten to that point already in our culture where "Christian" has become totally meaningless.

That ship has left and the jetty has rotted away. 33000 sects and to expect unity when we in a small town could not manage to get even 10 or so churches to cooperate. Even the three pentecostal churches differ in doctrine and creeds

On the other hand, because of various experiences that people have had, and because of the media, certain Christian groups have kind of become the "stereotype Christian," so some people have very specific ideas about what a "Christian," but it may be very different from what the majority of Christians would want to be portrayed as.

I can only speak from my perspective and measure this against what I read here from all over the world and everything I have shared thus far holds true in 3 continents and an island.

 

We tried importing Yongie Chows method of growing the church from Taiwan via home cells, bought his books ad it failed. It did not work as the method he used is culture specific. He has the single biggest church in the world, not even your mega churches in the US come close.

Regarding the ladder rung idea -- well, on some matters, I do think that would be the case. However.....maybe we need to discuss what the boundaries of the latter are. What are the real essential beliefs of the Christian faith? What are the non-essentials?

 

For me personally, the creeds lay out what the essentials are.

 

The Non-essentials would be the rungs on a latter....although the apologeticsindex.org website that I copied and pasted their entry for orthodoxy from point out that just because a church seems to hold to orthodox doctrine, it isn't necessarily the case that they actually do so in practice.

We/I know that

Certain beliefs in the non-essential area can be harmful to the followers as well, such as abusive practices. I don't think the followers would necessarily go to hell for practicing these things, but they can make people fall. Perhaps these rungs would be loose. People could still climb up and down them, but in time, the rung will break off, causing the person to fall.

 

There would have to be some rungs that weren't even on the ladder -- contradicting viewpoints. If we take the Trinity as an example, how can trinitarism, unitarism, Jesus Onlyism, and tritheism all be on the same ladder? Along the same line, how could someone who believes that Jesus was a created being be on the same ladder with someone who believes that Jesus was both fully God and fully man? These viewpoints are all completely contradictory in relation to each other.

 

How could someone who claims that Jesus never rose from the dead be on the same ladder as someone who claims that He was raised from the dead?

The honest answer is that xians have abandoned the bible years ago. Folk get into a church, they find solace there for whatever reason, they perhaps like the music, they prefer a sermon instead of having to operate in the gifts, maybe a pipe organ and choir appeals more to their personal preference of what is "holy music" as opposed to what I did with electric guitars, bass, drums and synthesizers (music is a big draw card and church became a form of righteous entertainment)

 

The base difference IMO is around catechism vs. alter calls. Oh BTW the DRC does sprinkling like the RCC and of course that is a derivative of when the pagans sprinkled their children with blood before offering them up as sacrifice to baal ( you can't make this shit up - oh wait you can) That was part of my "lesson" from a pentecostal pastor prior to me wanting immersion baptism when I still was at the DRC. That stuff sticks till you actually read the bible for yourself and see what it actually says. At that time I believed him, he was of course a man of gawd, why would I not believe him? Christians are not supposed to lie - Whoops.

 

I am sure all of these church's creed encompassed the Nicene creed apart from the pope bits and then some, It is these and then somes that differentiate them from each other.

 

You thus sit with a no win situation.

 

Having grown up in a cult that did not espouse the trintarian doctrine b/c it was of the RCC and thus the antichrist and false prophet, when I first encountered it I asked them to please explain. It did not make sense then and it never made sense.

 

You see, whatever you were brought up with, that will be your bias for life. It is called indoctrination. Why do you think I sounded so anti trinity? I never was taught it as a youngster, it was never a requirement to believe in it and it certainly is NOT in the scriptures no matter how hard you try to defend that belief.

 

Why do we hate the new and old apostolic faiths, they too believe in Jesus and god, perhaps not the trinity, they baptise by immersion and some evangelical sects argue about one dunk, or three dunks, ever seen a fat dude getting the three dunk version by a short skinny pastor? Hilarious, the old man simply floated away and refused to go under, not even once.

 

Then the gifts which I already mentioned, some insist you are not saved till you have the baptism of the hs ( the evidence of which is speaking in tongues) Do you know how this f***ed up my wife? She felt like an outsider till I found someone outside the church that assured her that there are 9 gifts and identified what gifts she had. Actually is was all crap. Her gift, discernment. Well she called the BS long before I did so maybe that was just woman's intuition. I was so convinced I was open to everything, she was more sceptical. I was also a dickhead and pressured her to renounce her old DR ways, do the sinner;s prayer, I inundated her with videos, spun a guilt trip on her and then pressured her to get baptised properly. Were it not for her patience, we probably would have divorced had I not come to my senses. As a good submissive wifey, she went along with me to every church I tried out. Basically the church turned me into a royal asshole.

 

So what is important? Seems we do not even have a method of salvation anyone can agree upon. Some sects here insist you get baptised again just to be sure you adhere fully to their creed.

 

So as far as the ladder concept, epic fail, it is more like scrambled cobweb.

 

The reason I know so much of the different sects, everywhere I went, I was inducted into the church band, must use talent for the lawd (parable of the talents always foisted upon me when I initially declined) and as such, got very close to the pastor very quick and here they tend to look after their musicians especially of you are good (good music = more attendees = bigger collection) In the times when I could I quizzed them about the doctrines and creeds, see I was trying to make sure this was the truth

 

As you know by now, I went on an extended sabbatical and started to research, Truth turned out to be a LIE.

 

So here I am atheist extrodinaire. My advice, toss it, it is not worth the effort.

[Realist]

LivingLife,

 

I've thought about it some more, and I'm willing to continue discussing my personal beliefs with you if you at least acknowledge that my beliefs are a legitimate viewpoint (that I have a right to hold to my own viewpoint.)

 

I do believe that you have a right and a reason for holding to the viewpoint that you do.

 

 

... Tenthdoctor ... this from my point of view does not add up.

 

You admit YOU have a right to your point of view.

You admit "Living Life" (a self stated atheist) has a right to his point of view.

 

So why then ... your original posting heading in the Lion's Den:

A Serious Concern About Doctrine Being Taught In Some Churches

 

Why do other christians not have a right to THEIR point of view?

 

Is this not a little hypocritical seeing the bible is SO open to each individual's interpretation and at the opposite end you except an atheist has a right to his point of view?

[Antlerman]

See there is no standard and unlike antlerman, I am very much a B&W guy when it comes to religion, it should not defy logic and it should not be contradictory.[

It didn't defy logic for you when you gleefully pursued it. It does now, but that proves my point.

 

In the town I live in, they tried to get all the xian churches to work together. This was spearheaded by a concerned member of my last church and meetings were held and he almost went nuts trying to keep this thing going. The motive? To win more souls for jesus. They got a xian band to perform at the local HS called MIC (members in christ) and they finally agreed to have members there from each church to deal with the post alter call so that there would not be a stealing of sheep. It was quite funny to see an uncle there in a 3 piece suit (he had a real passion) and the music was pretty much heavy metal. That was the only joint effort at evangelising. The problem is with churches like the DR and RC churches, they have catechisms and as such no alter calls. They were not prepared to let that tradition go in lieu of the evangelical approach of a sinner's prayer. So it fizzled out to joint sunday evening services 6 times a year between us and the DR church and we charismatics were not allowed to do the gifts of tongues or prophesy for fear of "offending" the more conservative DR folk, no alter calls so we really were not compromising but relegating on our "creed" if you will. That fizzled out completely and everyone is doing their own thing again. The one good thing that came out of it was that the inter church slander and gossip did die down, we are a small town. Of course the JW's and old and new apostolic churches were not included as they are all heretics, everyone thinks they are nuts

 

Where are the core values?

Few of those efforts will succeed so long as each sees their views as literal truth. There is no true dialog when you can't see the world through another perspective. The Black and White thinking is the core truth to that. Leaving that religious mess behind and keeping that black and white thinking is simply a horizontal shift to a new "I've got the real truth now. You're all wrong." perspective.

 

...of course a man of gawd

It's really hard for you to maintain a rational composure, when being so logical isn't it? I don't get the need to use that sort of sub-par language in a rational discussion. Why is that?

 

Basically the church turned me into a royal asshole.

Nope. You ate it up and became one. It spoke to you, just like it spoke to me. Fundamentalism appeals to certain personality types. However, you did see you became that monster you don't like, it let your own monster out of its cage, and you then decided to get out. Kudos to all of us for that.

 

I find that not blaming the system and recognizing who were were in all that is the first step to recovery, to growth. Otherwise, it's too easy just to shift the same religious thinking from one point of view to the next as we move from one literalistic, black and white mode of thought to another. Deconversion is not just changing ones religion.

 

So as far as the ladder concept, epic fail, it is more like scrambled cobweb.

Epic fail? That's my analogy. Care to show me how the way I speak of it is an epic fail? She lacked understanding of it, so perhaps you were referring to her thoughts? If you think what I am saying is, I'd love to hear your thoughts why.

 

So here I am atheist extrodinaire. My advice, toss it, it is not worth the effort.

What does an atheist believe?

[Ouroboros]

LivingLife,

 

I've thought about it some more, and I'm willing to continue discussing my personal beliefs with you if you at least acknowledge that my beliefs are a legitimate viewpoint (that I have a right to hold to my own viewpoint.)

 

I do believe that you have a right and a reason for holding to the viewpoint that you do.

 

 

... Tenthdoctor ... this from my point of view does not add up.

 

You admit YOU have a right to your point of view.

You admit "Living Life" (a self stated atheist) has a right to his point of view.

 

So why then ... your original posting heading in the Lion's Den:

A Serious Concern About Doctrine Being Taught In Some Churches

 

Why do other christians not have a right to THEIR point of view?

 

Is this not a little hypocritical seeing the bible is SO open to each individual's interpretation?

That's exactly my problem with TenthDoctor's other thread.

 

And I don't think she understands that it it's detrimental to her own efforts to further her belief system by undermining other members of her own faith. In other words, if a police officer comes to you and ask you to trust him by telling you how corrupt other police districts are, would that help him get your trust? No. It wouldn't.

 

It's like me going out knocking on doors trying to "evangelize" atheism by telling people how bad some other atheists are in another organization.

[Antlerman]

LivingLife,

 

I've thought about it some more, and I'm willing to continue discussing my personal beliefs with you if you at least acknowledge that my beliefs are a legitimate viewpoint (that I have a right to hold to my own viewpoint.)

 

I do believe that you have a right and a reason for holding to the viewpoint that you do.

 

 

... Tenthdoctor ... this from my point of view does not add up.

 

You admit YOU have a right to your point of view.

You admit "Living Life" (a self stated atheist) has a right to his point of view.

 

So why then ... your original posting heading in the Lion's Den:

A Serious Concern About Doctrine Being Taught In Some Churches

 

Why do other christians not have a right to THEIR point of view?

 

Is this not a little hypocritical seeing the bible is SO open to each individual's interpretation?

That's exactly my problem with TenthDoctor's other thread.

 

And I don't think she understands that it it's detrimental to her own efforts to further her belief system by undermining other members of her own faith. In other words, if a police officer comes to you and ask you to trust him by telling you how corrupt other police districts are, would that help him get your trust? No. It wouldn't.

 

It's like me going out knocking on doors trying to "evangelize" atheism by telling people how bad some other atheists are in another organization.

This all is a very good observation. What I hear is that she wants to identify herself as Christian, and what she sees that identifies itself as Christian bothers her because it doesn't reflect her own heart. I think the error happens when she fails to recognize that she herself is trying to do the same thing they are which is identify themselves as Christian. They all say others are not true Christians, because they don't reflect themselves. But they largely all have the same motives, and make the same mistake. That mistake is trying to identify with a group.

 

What I could appreciate is someone who says they find value in Jesus' teachings and find following them to be beneficial to them. But at the same time recognizing that is is personal and that their path cannot be used to judge another. The real factor to judge by is simple: results. If what these others who claim a religious identity are doing produces the fruits of self-righteousness and narcissism, then that, that alone is where they are allowed to be criticized. If someone believes that literally Jesus will raise them bodily from the grave and they will live forever as themselves beyond this world, and the result is that they live a fuller life, that they bear fruits of compassion, understanding, and love, then who cares if it fits some idea of "orthodox" or 'right thinking' (or scientific thinking, for that matter)?

 

Thinking has little to do with how we live. How we live comes from the heart, and learning how to listen to that beyond just a book of ideas and concepts. And if what is in the heart finds wings in a religious symbol, then how is that wrong? If the heart turns sour and bitter, then no amount of 'right thinking' will help that. No amount of 'we have the truth!" does anything for that. I see in these modern days, "orthodoxy" is more a matter of a scientific response, approaching religious experience as a matter of reason. It is a symptom of its failure in the modern world.

[LivingLife]

It didn't defy logic for you when you gleefully pursued it. It does now, but that proves my point.

Bear in mind at that time gullibility and not logic was the driver. Hell and Trinity doctrines were the Q's that never departed but the mind meld was done well which proves only that clever people can do stupid things. The music of course kept be very occupied, I only had Mondays and Tuesdays off.

 

In the town I live in, they tried to get all the xian churches to work together. This was spearheaded by a concerned member of my last church and meetings were held and he almost went nuts trying to keep this thing going. The motive? To win more souls for jesus. They got a xian band to perform at the local HS called MIC (members in christ) and they finally agreed to have members there from each church to deal with the post alter call so that there would not be a stealing of sheep. It was quite funny to see an uncle there in a 3 piece suit (he had a real passion) and the music was pretty much heavy metal. That was the only joint effort at evangelising. The problem is with churches like the DR and RC churches, they have catechisms and as such no alter calls. They were not prepared to let that tradition go in lieu of the evangelical approach of a sinner's prayer. So it fizzled out to joint sunday evening services 6 times a year between us and the DR church and we charismatics were not allowed to do the gifts of tongues or prophesy for fear of "offending" the more conservative DR folk, no alter calls so we really were not compromising but relegating on our "creed" if you will. That fizzled out completely and everyone is doing their own thing again. The one good thing that came out of it was that the inter church slander and gossip did die down, we are a small town. Of course the JW's and old and new apostolic churches were not included as they are all heretics, everyone thinks they are nuts

 

Where are the core values?

Few of those efforts will succeed so long as each sees their views as literal truth. There is no true dialog when you can't see the world through another perspective. The Black and White thinking is the core truth to that. Leaving that religious mess behind and keeping that black and white thinking is simply a horizontal shift to a new "I've got the real truth now. You're all wrong." perspective.

I really do not give a hoot what other people may find as a replacement theology of spiritual path, IMO the need passed when I saw that it was all in the mind. It ess. boiled down to a lapse in cognitive thinking I was at at age 16 when I dissed it for the first time but there was a lingering what if I am wrong, I no longer have that doubt as I am armed with the full knowledge of where it all started and that is IS all man made.

Basically the church turned me into a royal asshole.

Nope. You ate it up and became one. It spoke to you, just like it spoke to me. Fundamentalism appeals to certain personality types. However, you did see you became that monster you don't like, it let your own monster out of its cage, and you then decided to get out. Kudos to all of us for that.

It was the hell side that lingered and I became fundy after opening up to everything. This is the right brain left brain thing, I tossed the filters and tried anything to lead me to truth™ as what I saw was not in my mind what I expected. Xians were supposed to be different yet when the questions are posed why, how, they say there is no perfect man only their mythical jesus, look to him, a cop out for their own misgivings, doubts and obvious seeds of doubt in truth™

 

I find that not blaming the system and recognizing who were were in all that is the first step to recovery, to growth. Otherwise, it's too easy just to shift the same religious thinking from one point of view to the next as we move from one literalistic, black and white mode of thought to another. Deconversion is not just changing ones religion.

I have abandoned all religion and spirituality, I did not need it ages 16-27 and was no worse off then than I was as a woo and than what I am now, NOTHING changed in the basic me.

So as far as the ladder concept, epic fail, it is more like scrambled cobweb.

Epic fail? That's my analogy. Care to show me how the way I speak of it is an epic fail? She lacked understanding of it, so perhaps you were referring to her thoughts? If you think what I am saying is, I'd love to hear your thoughts why.

I think it is all covered in the many detailed posts I have posted. Rambled quite a bit. Your question poses a philosophical approach. The ladder suggest there is a higher plane to be achieved, well we tried that crap in soaking giving over to hearing the voice of god while listening to music aka meditation, nada squat for me. The voices I heard early on was directly proportional to the time vested in solo bible study, the renewing your mind daily IOW filling your mind with crap and it mulls over and over in your head. Later I studied less as I was involved in music and there was no time practice sessions were like 4 hours on a Thursday more for the other musicians that were not skilled and services never under 2-1/2 hours. The idea is to attain the higher level others claim they found but in reality they were lying.

 

I attended secular training courses designed to open you up to other concepts etc. never worked, not even secular meditation.

 

I now realise that wisdom comes with age and trying to bypass that fact, you only kidding yourself. In christianity there is no higher path. All that happens to buy into more and more BS till you are totally confused. I had to make a conscious decision to extract myself and go on an extended sabbatical, I never found truth™ as it never existed to start off with. I have no need of left or right brain activity, hardly listen to music and have not touched my guitar in 8 years apart from showing my son chords when he asks.

So here I am atheist extrodinaire. My advice, toss it, it is not worth the effort.

What does an atheist believe?

This one, nothing. I know what I don't believe. Anything that is factually provable and requires no interpretation is believable.

 

Is there a creative side to me? yes. I design and install kitchens and all my customers like the way I take their requirements and visualise it in 3D for them and the final product matches exactly what I designed. I am writing a book, I composed music. Everything I set out to do has to have a logical outcome, an achievable goal.

 

Other than that I am pretty normal.

[TenthDoctor]

What you don't understand is that TBN is not representative of what I mean when I say evangelical Christian. I do not watch TBN, nor do I follow any of the TBN preachers. In fact, those are the very ones that I consider to be false.

 

I do not follow Jimmy Swaggart, nor is he representative of what it means to be an evangelical Christianity in America.

No I do understand. You are trying to redefine what evangelical means. All of the examples claim evangelism as their preferred method of indoctrination or spreading the word whereas reformed churches tend to have less of an affront and generally tends to stick to existing members that may change location as in towns and cater for their children.

 

The point you need to understand, this evangelical brand was imported from America and follows their approach of doing the Billy Graham styled crusades, preaching in the malls, tent revivals IOW everything that started in the US around the "Azuza street revival" That is the origins of the evangelical movement no matter how much you wish to deny it.

 

As a kid in Zambia in the 50's, there were American missionaries that we knew, their kids went to school with my older siblings, I was a latecomer. The cult my parents were caught up in started in Ireland by a dude that had multiple mistresses and many illegitimate children, we were taught in this cult, only the preacher had the divine revelation from god and we should pose all questions to them in writing and they claimed the church was a direct descendant from the early church in jesus' time. This cult is evangelical in that rebirth and immersion baptism is a requirement to be saved but there are no gifts as in the evangelical movements. This cult was/is loosely known as The Way and is worldwide and even in places like China.

 

Point is. when transatlantic flight became common, the Americans started bringing their evangelical doctrines to Africa. The South African influence was delayed as in the early apartheid days, the DR church played a big role in the government to the point it was almost a theocratic regime. The last white "president" of SA FW de Klerk was an ordained Dutch Reformed minister that went into politics but he never abandoned his faith and stuff like opening of parliament with a christian service was par for the course.

 

So as far as evangelical, what you folk practice in the US, the evangelicals do here, only difference is that the majority of pentecostals are Afrikaans speaking and still predominantly white. The evangelical influence transcends races but the races still tend to keep to their own kind while practising the same brands of faith, a legacy of apartheid. It appears to be similar in the US where the likes of TD Jakes congregation is predominantly black and the likes of Jesse du Plantis predominantly white (tell me I am wrong) BTW 95% of our TV is American and has been so due to sanctions by the Brits of their arts.

 

To claim that your version of evangelical christianity is "different" merely mirrors the multi denominational brands of evangelicals we have here in SA.

 

The point here is to determine whose orthodoxy is right and whose is wrong. Hey guess what? They all do exactly the same thing here. They accuse each other of being heretics based of really minor aspects of doctrine.

 

Our big evangelical guru Ray McAuley Rhema church, again tied to the US and he and his 1st wife studied there under the Kennith Hagan Rhema banner church in the US. His congregation was predominantly white. Then he had an affair, divorced and a mass exodus ensued, he remarried his lover, and he moved his ministry into Soweto a black city also from the apartheid days and his congregation went mainly black. He is in divorce proceedings with wife2.0 He has an obscene mansion and lives in the lap of luxury. He used to be a professional body builder.

 

Hatfield Family Church is another mega church here with early roots to the USA. They have broken that and now link to some group in Europe, possibly the Netherlands.

 

So really, your version of evangelical is just another in the long line of these splits and forming new churches. My last church was linked to the US direct for the xian schooling and to Hatfield Family church for covering, they too have changed their allegiance to another EU group.

 

This is the way of the evangelical until they achieve mega church status then they pretty much do what they damn well please.

 

I will say this of the pentecostals, they do appear to have some form of central authority, they use the same name in all towns and relate back to a governing body. As they are predominantly Afrikaans, this is a carry over from the Dutch Reformed style of governing body. The baptists do their own thing, the evangelicals do their own thing and by own thing, they call themselves whatever meets their fancy. Oh the last church I attended, when it was founded the then pastor was having eight simultaneous affairs with women from his church, I only found this out much later.

 

So if we are to really examine orthodoxy, the honest approach is to ask which group have a central governing body. Work backwards to see who still has a central governing body (that works) and use them as the default. I am sure this will be some brand of pentecostal and will date back to the 50's or so.

 

Then to really be honest, you need to trace back their origins and from where they split and this will take you back to the original reformed churches in Europe. Somewhere in the 16th century you will find the split from the RCC if the origins are not British. If British, the split came in the time of king Henry the 8th to the Church of England which is identical to the RCC except is allows divorce w/o excommunication (AFAIK)

 

You then need to trace back pre-reformed days which will bring you to around the 4th century when the christian faith essentially was invented. Going past that is very speculative as records become thin outside what the RCC want you to believe.

 

Any SoF that claims ascendency directly from the early church circa 1 CE is LYING.

 

IOW ALL the churches came from the RCC originally and as they still exist, whatever their creeds are must be the original. The Eastern Orthodox split happened in the 11th Century. The three main churches today that have apostolic succession is the RCC, EOC and the Church of England and all of them trace back to the 4th century and share that history between them before they split.

 

Back to the cult I grew up in.

 

We had no pastors or fathers or priests. They were/are called Workers and they follow the principle of poverty/servitude/celibacy. They give up everything they own, everything barring one dress or one suit when they enter into the ministry. They receive no salary and all their needs, clothing, transport is provided for by the members and usually anonymously. They own no house or cars and are accommodated in congregants homes. The congregants are called friends and there is no church building. Some homes are classified as open homes and they are free to simply make a call or pitch up and the home owner accommodates and feeds them. The workers go out in pairs. Should they need to go to foreign lands, someone foots the bill and when they get there, friends there will take care of them.

 

When they are not in your town, elders like my dad was, will conduct services which is more of moderator as each person is expected to share for the edification of the group. This would be akin to cell churches if you have ever been exposed to that. When the workers are in town, they conduct the service except now the various cells come together at someone who has a large house and the seating follows a pew arrangement instead of a typical circle format. No collection plate ever goes around. The need for funds handled by the senior workers usually very old guys in their late 70's got around by word of moth and you simply gave it to them in an unmarked envelope. There is no bank account for this and everything is done cash.

 

Should a Worker find themselves falling in love etc. they leave the Work (ministry) and can marry. Their pairing in the Work is two males or two females, never a mix as the pairs usually have to share a bedroom.

 

This cult IMO follows the early acts church to a tee almost and also follows the pauline principles of virginity in a very literal sense. So obviously as kids when we saw this happening in real life and read the bible (no kiddies bibles for us) you saw what was mentioned there happening in front of your eyes. What was there not to believe that this did not come from the time of Jesus. then someone went and actually traced the cult back to its origins in Ireland and published it to the Internet. Wow were we shocked.

 

In this cult, you were forced to attend church 3 times a week, twice on Sunday and on Wednesday night. Sunday mornings was for sharing anything pertinent with your walk with the lord and had no format per se, two hymns, open prayer session where all expected to participate (that were saved IOW had made a start and had been baptised) another hymn, sharing, communion, another hymn and closing prayer by elder or Worker if present. Sunday night and Wednesday night was akin to bible study, you were given a list once a year of what program to follow, one for Sunday evenings and one for Wednesday evenings.

 

At the age of 16, you are sat down by your parents if you had not yet made a start/commitment and given the choice to attend or not under your own free will. I chose not to. No abandonment, no admonition, it was now in the lord's hands.

 

The evangelical side, the Workers would go door-door and simply give a typed invite to what was known as a gospel meeting, there was no preaching as everyone else was not saved, ours was the only way. A hall would be hired for this and of course folk like me were also invited. These meetings happened on a Friday evening and followed for a period of 6 weeks. The last meeting, the invitation to make a start was given (alter call) and in absolute silence, with the congregants heads bowed, they simply had to stand to their feet.

 

My run in with the CoC in later years, if you did this you were immediately baptised.

 

Not so with us. You had to prove you were sincere and went on a type of probation to see how faithful you were in attending services. Once a year we all migrated to the capital city and had a four day session of meetings in a tent or a hired hall called a convention and that was three a day each lasting 2-1/2 hours. Stretchers and mattresses were provided and the men bunked together as did the women. Young/nursing mothers had separate quarters. Food was provided ina mess hall environment and 3 meals a day. On the Sunday which was the last day, there was a baptism service held very early in the morning. Not everyone needed to attend (did I mention this was in winter) and it was done outside, no preheated baptismal baths.

 

A smaller version of this happened six months later and was in a hall and limited to a district.

 

The reason I mention this, this is what I was indoctrinated with and even to this day remains the barometer whereby I gauge all other xian sects. Everyone I have shared this with says that sounds like the real deal but alas, it too is BS. If you think the "heavy" other sects place on you this was ten times worse.

 

No TV, no radio, no make up, no jewellery except wedding band and it had to be very plain, not even an engagement ring (diamonds taboo) women had to wear dresses, hair in buns, suits to church for the men, short back and sides (marine style) haircuts, not allowed to really mix with school friends, no movies, no alcohol, no smoking, kids given corporeal punishment for the slightest infraction (my dad had a custom made leather strap 2" x 15" and a laminated leather handle that one of the "friends" whose hobby it was to make these, he made a good living as all parents had one, well the one I knew), boys not allowed to sit next to girls unless own siblings, no dating till you were 18, no marriage ceremony or banquet (married at court and tea and cookies reception, no confetti, brides not allowed to wear worldly styled wedding dress, usually knee length dress and a hat, no veil) women at one time were forced to wear hats and that included little girls from about 9 onwards, boys 8 and over short pants and shirt with tie as you got older, shorts became longs, no jeans allowed EVER, no celebration of xmas or any religious holidays, easter Sunday was just another Sunday and probably a load of others I cannot remember. Although no hell fire and brimstone sermons were ever given, you were subtly made aware that was the default destination unless......

 

So when it come to false prophets, false teachers and false doctrines, I think I really have a solid understanding of what these are. I never once had a watered down Sunday school exposure so since I can remember, it has been the unabridged angry sky daddy most other xians only get to meet in their teens.

 

So obviously charismatic was a draw, live band, dress less formal, no real requirement to read the bible, just listen to the pastor but a question I had regarding hell at age 8 never left me and not even a PhD pastor could answer the questions I had so in the end I had to research for myself.

 

Apart from the gawd awful shit I had to endure which are blatantly obvious as man made doctrines (the text of jesus admonishing the scribes and Pharisees about the doctrines that no man could master comes to mind), whose creed more closely matches that of the Acts church, yours or mine (mine in the sense of what I grew up with)?

 

I did want to respond to this post for sure.

 

First, thank you so much for your openness to discussing your beliefs with me, and thank you for sharing your experience.

 

I don't know a whole lot about the Way cult, but I read about it in connection with someone named Michael Rood when a friend of mine was getting caught up in Michael Rood's teachings. Rood, apparently, had been part of the Way, and many of his teachings are still evident of that influence.

 

This actually ties back into the discussion about orthodoxy vs. heresy, as the Way is considered by Christian apologists to be theologically a cult. It sounds like it was also sociologically a cult (from reading about your experience) as well.

 

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/w17.html

 

Hmm...after reading the article at apologeticsindex.org, I'm not sure that this is the same The Way International that you had experience with. The researches from the apologeticsindex site thought that it originated in Ohio. Maybe this is a similar group, or maybe they didn't trace the history of it far back enough. Or maybe this is a different group. I don't know.

 

Anyway, you said it was anti-trinitarian, which would fit with what the Way International teaches.

 

From reading about your experience, all I can say is that I'm so glad you're out of it. Forcing people to go to church as well as some of their other rules, etc. is not something that I would call a perfect New Testament church. Yes, some of the ideas sound nice, but it also sounds very legalistic to me. Wow...you must have been through a lot, growing up in that environment.

[R. S. Martin]

From what I can see in this thread, it appears that--like beauty--orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the mind of the believer. From the perspective of scholarly religious studies, I think Christian orthodoxy normally is as stated in the creeds TenthDoctor posted on the first page of this thread. In a nutshell: Belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, Jesus born of a virgin, died and buried, risen the third day, sitting at the right hand of God to judge the quick and the dead.

 

Other variations of the theme of Christianity that I call less that orthodox are ideas that see the Jesus story as a parable for life, the Cosmic Christ, Jesus as myth, no afterlife, etc. And then there's the more blurred situations where people believe in hell as non-burning separation from God, that Christianity is not a religion--it's a relationship, the spiritualization of orthodoxy, i.e. orthodoxy is faithfulness and/or a spiritual quest--all of these people may hold the literal biblical narrative more or less but they have strayed from the "old time religion" as preached for fifteen to eighteen centuries.

 

Some posts in this thread also sought for the origins of the creeds. I was one of them. I don't think these are the normally accepted "orthodox Christian" doctrines that made it into the canon of the NT and theology texts accepted across the centuries and preached throughout the world until 1500 and well beyond. Unitarianism arose in the 17 or 1800s. Since then, so did many dozens (hundreds or thousands?) of other denominations world-wide, but especially in the United States.

 

At one time, Germany was the birthplace of new ideas. Splinter sects seem to have been around all the time--at least, since the Reformation beginning about 1500--when they found a way not to get themselves killed by the powerful State Churches.

 

The State Churches obviously thought they had the right belief and that it was their sacred duty to purify the land of heretics. On the other hand, splinter groups such as the Waldensians and Anabaptists felt so confident that they had the correct beliefs that they were willing to endure imprisonment, inhumane torture, and martyr deaths rather than compromise their beliefs.

 

Who, I ask, had orthodox beliefs? And who is qualified to judge if the Pope is not? I certainly don't trust a person who obviously wrote her own statement of faith in the absence of fellow-believers. That is about as unorthodox as it is possible to get. Sorry, TD, this is not an attack on you or your beliefs but my personal opinion on what is orthodox based on my knowledge of official church doctrine and NT teachings.

 

The New Testament and official church doctrine emphasize the absolute importance of Church, and the fellowship of like-minded believers. I likewise disagree that pastors who edit their faith statements without the endorsement of their congregations or fellow pastors are orthodox. Nothing should be done by private interpretation, the NT teaches.

 

So yeah, who is qualified to judge orthodox beliefs if the Pope & company is not? The people the Pope killed for their faith? But Catholics died, too, for their faith.

This whole post is very well stated. I've put in bold what I feel was the original point I was hoping to see get fleshed out in such a discussion. Orthodoxy is the truth to those from a certain perspective. There is not only one perspective on anything. The scholar says the Bible means this, the mystic says it means this. Who is right? Why not both? If someone is standing on a ladder and they look at the world from rung number 12 and describe what they are seeing, it is a valid take on reality from their altitude. Another person on that same ladder is at run 62. He describes the world he sees from up there and it differs from the gentleman on rung 12. Is he wrong?

 

Here comes the point. To the man on rung 62 he can hear the description of the world from the man on rung 12 and say, 'yes, that's true from someone looking at the world on rung 12. He can remember that himself as he had to step onto rung 12 before he got to rung 62. The man on rung 12 however has never climbed to rung 62 yet and seen the world from that altitude, and when he hears the description from someone at that rung he imagines them to be crazy, "woo-woo", a sinner, or a heretic, rejecting all rung 12'ism truths!

 

My point is that for any one committee of humans to make proclamations about a non-linear reality from their perspectives on what they are observing and interpreting, and then make judgments that this is truth and this is error for all others is in fact incredibly short-sighted. And, that short-sightedness comes from what I would say is simply a lack of altitude or depth of experience. They don't see a rung above them because that reality is outside their experience. The world needs to look and feel and be believed in accord with their perspectives. They are therefore busy making themselves the arbiters of truth for others. They are placing themselves in the position of God in some ultimate judgement, from their perspective and that place on the ladder.

 

Orthodox really means what is acceptable for that group's perspective. No group can claim the perspective of God, and judge for others truth from that altitude unless they themselves have adapted to that level of seeing the world, not in little glimpses, but in a full positional shift of perspective. And I'll dare say that at that point, you would have sufficient enough altitude to say that all these 'orthodoxies' are truths to those on the lower rungs, partial perspectives, reality's truths suited to them on their rung on that ladder. Ultimate Truth embraces all truths. Orthodoxy is relative.

 

This was what my original point I was driving at.

 

I have also read your Post 108 to TD, and your OP on What is Religion. As an exChristian and atheist I don't care what people think constitutes Christian orthodoxy. As a halfway academic with a strong interest in history of theology and a penchant for the correct usage of words and language, I would like to make a few points, if I may.

1. It appears to me that you are equating Truth with Orthodoxy.
   
2. I state in the title that the topic of this thread is Christian orthodoxy.
   
3. You clarify in Post 108 that in your opinion the goal of religion is personal growth or maturation.
   

In Post 108, you also discount the validity of science and/or history. Or you think they are greatly inferior to your way of seeing the world. For that reason, I almost despaired of responding. However, I think my points need to be made for those who do see the world through these lenses.

 

 

 

I have no argument with Point 3. I know that lots of people see things that way. Using religion for personal growth may be orthodox Carl Rogers philosophy but historically it is not part of Christian doctrine and therefore it is not Christian orthodoxy. See below.

 

I realize you are strong on symbolism. My teachers used to say that words are symbols. However, if individuals redefine words as suits them, then language looses its value as a tool and humans loose their ability to communicate efficiently.

 

The words "Truth" and "orthodox" do not mean the same, as defined in Dictionary.com (see op of this thread). In other words, "right belief" does not equal "truth" for time and eternity, though the people adhering to "right belief" obviously think it does. I demonstrate this with the State Churches and Anabaptists in the post you quote.

 

That "right belief" or orthodoxy does not equal truth is also demonstrated when Christians, Jews, and Muslims go to war to fight for a piece of holy ground in the Middle East because they can't agree on its appropriate use. Or when Christians declare with a straight face that Muslims worship the wrong god while the Muslims condemn the Christians for being polytheistic--each consigning the other to their own hell (Christians go to the Muslim hell and Muslims go to the Christian hell). And Jews all the while know that They are the only True Children of God.

 

That is only three of the zillions of the world's religions. Each of them have "right beliefs."

 

This thread (if we wish to stick with the topic stated in the title) looks only at "right beliefs" or orthodoxy for Christianity. What constitutes "right beliefs" for Christianity? It seems that over the course of two thousand years the closest long-term agreement Christians have yet been able to reach is the creeds TD posted early in this thread.

 

Antlerman, to your analogy of the various ladder or floor levels. I think a truly open-minded person who is concerned with integrity of truth and intellect will seriously consider the views of both the person on Rung 12 and 62, along with the views of people from jetliners and space shuttles. The person who has spent a lifetime on that specific plot of ground will know far more about that geographic area than the person who has spent a lifetime learning how to build and operate spacecraft. However, for multiple views of sunrise in a single morning, a person probably has to board a spacecraft.

 

Both the insects on the ground and the view from space of the planet in its sphere contribute to the human knowledge of the universe in which we live.

 

I am not sure how that analogy about the various levels is relevant to a discussion on "What is Christian orthodoxy?" It may be relevant in that it suggests that a long-term development of beliefs is necessary before the term "orthodox" can be applied. If that is what you mean, then I would remind readers that according to Dictionary.com the word "orthodox" was not coined until the 1500s when Christianity had been established a good thousand years. Since the 1500s were a time of great religious unrest in Europe (when Luther and very many others were breaking away from the RCC, aka the Reformation), my guess is the term may have been coined to define the RCC beliefs from all the upstarts. What is today evangelical did not yet exist then, or if it did in embryo, it would definitely have been seen as heresy.

 

So if we are going to look at the big picture from the top rung on the ladder, the top story of the building, or the jetliner or space shuttle, I can see no other way than to include the historical situation. Otherwise, we are rudderless and invent our own definitions of words so that terms and language looses its meaning. I am sure symbolism, meaning of life, and personal growth fit in there somewhere because I integrate all of these in my life along with history and science.

 

That is where I am coming from, Antlerman. I trust it is okay for me to suggest parameters like this on a thread I personally started. Though I no longer really care where it goes. I just care about having my words twisted and I wasn't sure if perhaps that was happening so I felt a need to clarify. Hope that is okay.

 

Since I have been working on this for a couple hours, other stuff may have been posted in the meantime that I haven't seen yet.

[TenthDoctor]

I'm going to need to expand on what I said initially in order to help understand this in the framework that I am. Please bear with me a little.

 

I would like to link you to another topic I started sometime ago that touches on where I'm going. It addressed different understandings of how religions is approached and its role in people's lives. It is not a single thing, but many things. If you only read the first post in this link, it will give us some common ground for discussion. I'll be referencing that going forward. Link: http://www.ex-christ...post__p__618667

 

In my post in this thread you are responding to I referred to rungs on a ladder. I'm am referring to developmental levels. Another analogy would be that of floors in a building. I will be referring to vertical direction and horizontal direction. When we speak of things like "the right way to interpret the Bible," we are not speaking about differences between rung 12 and rung 62, but rather arguments about people's perspectives on rung 12, in a horizontal direction. Vertical change offers and entirely new perspective from a change in altitude.

 

Horizontal differences are what are trying to navigate the furniture on the 12 floor of the building, moving it around, changing it to see what new knowledge of that floor can be gleaned. That act is part of a process of development, expanding understanding on that level to master that floor. Eventually however 'answers' found on that floor become exhausted to the question, or pull to something that that floor's furniture simply doesn't address. Then suddenly, your in an elevator and you go up to another floor, and the entire questions shift. There is new furniture to navigate and master horizontally. In other words, to help you translate the world at that level.

 

I'll continue as I further respond...

 

Yep, me thinks the furniture on that level is becoming outgrown. People are ready to find that elevator. What you see in Christianity in all these aberrations are a symptom of the system itself being adequate to help translate horizontally the present world. Dreams of finding truth in the past is a failed Romanticism.

 

That entire set of questions change at a new altitude (to continue with that metaphor). Your questions speak to the "essentials" of that belief in a horizontal direction to help those on that level navigate that floor of the building. It is only pertinent to those on floor 12, so to speak. From floor 30 the set of questions change. It becomes things like what is the value of religious symbolism in human experience, not whether or not its true in a historical/scientific context. In fact to 'disprove' Christian faith, or any religious faith on that basis is itself not really thinking that deeply. Of course it fails the test of science. But just like my criticism religious committees the judge of all higher truth (while they themselves lack any perspective beyond that floor), I equally chide those who look to Science with a capital S as the new Holy See, the validators of true doctrine or heresy, the new Orthodoxy. I reject that for the same reasons I do religion's claim to Supreme Arbitrator of "Right Thinking™."

 

As an aside, on that horizontal translational level, I would say that is legitimate for those that are trying to understand the world in that particular corner of the room on that floor. There are also other ways to understand that floor as well that are equally as legitimate. Please refer to R8 definition in the other topic I linked to. This is why and how I can and do acknowledge your views as legitimate. They are working for you to help you navigate the world with degrees of success. However, to recognize that is to also recognize the legitimacy of systems for others. As you begin to see that, in fact you begin to move to another floor altogether. And that world has it's own horizontal truths.

 

As I mention translating the world, I should also add that there is illegitimate practices as well. If that practice leads to dysfunction, to dissolution of someone's personal growth, then it needs to be jettisoned. Where your views right now are legitimate for you, for me that would not be. They would cause me to be unable to navigate the world I've moved into. And I'm saying that they were legitimate for me when I used them, but I have moved to where thinking that way would not help me now.

 

To clarify my meaning of ladder and rungs, once you go up to another rung your perception has changed to the point you can no longer go back. Think of it in terms of how you thought of the world as a child. Can you know as an adult go back to that 12 year girl you used to be? Yet, there was a legitimate understanding of the world for you as a 12 year old that helped you realize the emerging world of a young adult. That 12 year old is still there, but she became integrated into a mature adult. You can't go up and down on that ladder, even though habits do pop up and behaviors and modes of thinking that are from an early stage of development.

 

The question of the Trinity is a different question when you aren't trying to say "Yes it is, no it's not". I could elaborate, but I'm out of time....

 

Okay -- thank you for the clarification. I think I can grasp what you're saying, and where you would like to go with this topic.

 

Let me check just to be sure --

Are you talking about kind of like spiritual levels of development that a person might go through?

 

So that each level is talking about a way of thinking?

 

You were saying that black and white thinking about spiritual matters is a kind of thinking. It doesn't matter the subject of the black and white thinking (whether someone thinks a specific religion is right and everyone else's belief is wrong....or if an atheist says that his/her belief is right and everyone else's is wrong.)

 

Have I understood you correctly?

 

Although I think I understand it, I'm not on board with the idea personally. However, I do think it is useful for discussion purposes.

[TenthDoctor]

 

 

I have also read your Post 108 to TD, and your OP on What is Religion. As an exChristian and atheist I don't care what people think constitutes Christian orthodoxy. As a halfway academic with a strong interest in history of theology and a penchant for the correct usage of words and language, I would like to make a few points, if I may.

1. It appears to me that you are equating Truth with Orthodoxy.
   
2. I state in the title that the topic of this thread is Christian orthodoxy.
   
3. You clarify in Post 108 that in your opinion the goal of religion is personal growth or maturation.
   

In Post 108, you also discount the validity of science and/or history. Or you think they are greatly inferior to your way of seeing the world. For that reason, I almost despaired of responding. However, I think my points need to be made for those who do see the world through these lenses.

 

 

 

I have no argument with Point 3. I know that lots of people see things that way. Using religion for personal growth may be orthodox Carl Rogers philosophy but historically it is not part of Christian doctrine and therefore it is not Christian orthodoxy. See below.

 

I realize you are strong on symbolism. My teachers used to say that words are symbols. However, if individuals redefine words as suits them, then language looses its value as a tool and humans loose their ability to communicate efficiently.

 

The words "Truth" and "orthodox" do not mean the same, as defined in Dictionary.com (see op of this thread). In other words, "right belief" does not equal "truth" for time and eternity, though the people adhering to "right belief" obviously think it does. I demonstrate this with the State Churches and Anabaptists in the post you quote.

 

That "right belief" or orthodoxy does not equal truth is also demonstrated when Christians, Jews, and Muslims go to war to fight for a piece of holy ground in the Middle East because they can't agree on its appropriate use. Or when Christians declare with a straight face that Muslims worship the wrong god while the Muslims condemn the Christians for being polytheistic--each consigning the other to their own hell (Christians go to the Muslim hell and Muslims go to the Christian hell). And Jews all the while know that They are the only True Children of God.

 

That is only three of the zillions of the world's religions. Each of them have "right beliefs."

 

This thread (if we wish to stick with the topic stated in the title) looks only at "right beliefs" or orthodoxy for Christianity. What constitutes "right beliefs" for Christianity? It seems that over the course of two thousand years the closest long-term agreement Christians have yet been able to reach is the creeds TD posted early in this thread.

 

Antlerman, to your analogy of the various ladder or floor levels. I think a truly open-minded person who is concerned with integrity of truth and intellect will seriously consider the views of both the person on Rung 12 and 62, along with the views of people from jetliners and space shuttles. The person who has spent a lifetime on that specific plot of ground will know far more about that geographic area than the person who has spent a lifetime learning how to build and operate spacecraft. However, for multiple views of sunrise in a single morning, a person probably has to board a spacecraft.

 

Both the insects on the ground and the view from space of the planet in its sphere contribute to the human knowledge of the universe in which we live.

 

I am not sure how that analogy is relevant to a discussion on "What is Christian orthodoxy?" It may be relevant in that it suggests that a long-term development of beliefs is necessary before the term "orthodox" can be applied. If that is what you mean, then I would remind readers that according to Dictionary.com the word "orthodox" was not coined until the 1500s when Christianity had been established a good thousand years. Since the 1500s were a time of great religious unrest in Europe (when Luther and very many others were breaking away from the RCC, aka the Reformation), my guess is the term may have been coined to define the RCC beliefs from all the upstarts. What is today evangelical did not yet exist then, or if it did in embryo, it would definitely have been seen as heresy.

 

So if we are going to look at the big picture from the top rung on the ladder, the top story of the building, or the jetliner or space shuttle, I can see no other way than to include the historical situation. Otherwise, we are rudderless and invent our own definitions of words so that terms and language looses its meaning. I am sure symbolism, meaning of life, and personal growth fit in there somewhere because I integrate all of these in my life along with history and science.

 

That is where I am coming from, Antlerman. I trust it is okay for me to suggest parameters like this on a thread I personally started. Though I no longer really care where it goes. I just care about having my words twisted and I wasn't sure if perhaps that was happening so I felt a need to clarify. Hope that is okay.

 

Since I have been working on this for a couple hours, other stuff may have been posted in the meantime that I haven't seen yet.

 

Thanks -- I think that your post here brings it back to actual discussion about Christian orthodoxy.

 

I was actually going to leave this thread if it got into a discussion about spiritual levels rather than discussing Christian orthodoxy.

 

I feel like I've said all I could about what I see Christian orthodoxy as being, though....which is the creeds. That's the common thread that I see across various denominations -- Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, United Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, the Association of Vineyard Churches, the Assemblies of God, Baptists, etc. (This is not an exhaustive list). All the denominations that I know of hold to the creeds. In this way, they all claim to be apostolic -- because they all believe that the beliefs stated in the creeds are what the apostles taught....and that it is the faith that has been passed down.

 

Yes, there are differences between denominations, but the core faith is the same across all denominations.

 

I posted my own statement of faith only because I was asked to come up with a statement of faith for myself for discussion with LivingLife. My statement of faith wasn't meant to be taken as authoritative or the judge of what orthodoxy is. However, the creeds are seen as that way by many Christians, across denominational lines.

 

Even many non-denominational churches will adhere to these creeds.

 

Therefore, groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the Way International, Unitarian Universalists, and several others are considered to be holding beliefs that are outside the realm of orthodoxy because they do not agree with these creeds.

[mymistake]

However, the creeds are seen as that way by many Christians, across denominational lines.

 

Even many non-denominational churches will adhere to these creeds.

 

Therefore, groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the Way International, Unitarian Universalists, and several others are considered to be holding beliefs that are outside the realm of orthodoxy because they do not agree with these creeds.

 

Ah yes, that is what it is really about. Some Christians say the creeds define what is orthodox. So we are not going to ask those who do not agree. Instead we will will write them off as outside the realm of orthodoxy. But the most popular and oldest surviving sect in Christendom says that all others are outside of the realm of orthodoxy. Well in that case we are going to do special pleading because we can't be outside of orthodoxy because we are us.

[Antlerman]

I have also read your Post 108 to TD, and your OP on What is Religion. As an exChristian and atheist I don't care what people think constitutes Christian orthodoxy. As a halfway academic with a strong interest in history of theology and a penchant for the correct usage of words and language, I would like to make a few points, if I may.

 

It appears to me that you are equating Truth with Orthodoxy.

 

No. This is not the case at all.

 

 

I state in the title that the topic of this thread is Christian orthodoxy.

 

Yes you do, and what I am saying directly relates to that. The point is that calling something the correct belief, or 'right thinking' requires something that none of those who do have. That is my point about that ladder in that metaphor.

 

 

You clarify in Post 108 that in your opinion the goal of religion is personal growth or maturation.

 

In Post 108, you also discount the validity of science and/or history.

I'm sorry you took it that way. That most certainly is not the case in my thinking at all.

 

Or you think they are greatly inferior to your way of seeing the world. For that reason, I almost despaired of responding. However, I think my points need to be made for those who do see the world through these lenses.

Speaking of history, don't we always seem to run into this assumptions issue? Glad you're asking for clarification.

 

My view of science is that I highly respect it and all the tools of history. It is in fact through those I have come to many of the views I hold today. What I don't agree with is those that see those as the final arbitrator of truth. If you are familiar with the term, Epistimological Pluralism, that would be describe where I am coming from. What I buck against is those who take science and make it Scientism, leaping beyond the power of science into philosophical speculations as absolute truth. That's the only thing you will hear me say negative. It's about that misuse of science.

 

I have no argument with Point 3. I know that lots of people see things that way. Using religion for personal growth may be orthodox Carl Rogers philosophy but historically it is not part of Christian doctrine and therefore it is not Christian orthodoxy. See below.

Well that's an interesting thought. I would agree frankly that most religions, including Christianity are more about group-identity and social structures through religion. But even so individuals who are seeking spiritual growth do exist within them.

 

I realize you are strong on symbolism. My teachers used to say that words are symbols. However, if individuals redefine words as suits them, then language looses its value as a tool and humans loose their ability to communicate efficiently.

Words are symbols, yes. Language as symbols are by the very fact they are not concrete objects like a rock on the ground, but mental objects, they shift and evolve. This is what language does. That said however, I don't feel my use of language is a violation of meaning. There is many shades of meanings to words, not some static block on a piece of paper.

 

 

The words "Truth" and "orthodox" do not mean the same, as defined in Dictionary.com (see op of this thread).

Have I ever said they do? I haven't. My understanding of the word orthodox is that is means "right thinking". That is the only way I have ever referred to it. Where truth comes in is that to them that 'right thinking' is the truth. Do you see that as invalid?

Antlerman, to your analogy of the various ladder or floor levels. I think a truly open-minded person who is concerned with integrity of truth and intellect will seriously consider the views of both the person on Rung 12 and 62, along with the views of people from jetliners and space shuttles.

If someone has never been to rung 62, that view is incomprehensible to them. They are unable to relate to it through the fact of inexperience. Try to explain how you see the world to a 10 year old. Do you think they "get it"? I do not believe it is possible for them to understand the world through your eyes, or even have a remote sympathetic understanding. They utterly lack life experience at that age.

 

My point in that analogy is that it is comparable to a 10 year old proclaiming reality for everyone else, including you in your middle ages. That is invalid. And hence, why saying one view of a religions meaning is the 'right thinking' is invalid. There can be no actual, real orthodoxy for this one reason alone: we are all at different places in our growth, our stages of development.

 

Do you see what I am saying now?

 

That is where I am coming from, Antlerman. I trust it is okay for me to suggest parameters like this on a thread I personally started. Though I no longer really care where it goes. I just care about having my words twisted and I wasn't sure if perhaps that was happening so I felt a need to clarify. Hope that is okay.

I am not twisting your words. You are misunderstanding mine.

[R. S. Martin]

However, the creeds are seen as that way by many Christians, across denominational lines.

 

Even many non-denominational churches will adhere to these creeds.

 

Therefore, groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the Way International, Unitarian Universalists, and several others are considered to be holding beliefs that are outside the realm of orthodoxy because they do not agree with these creeds.

 

Ah yes, that is what it is really about. Some Christians say the creeds define what is orthodox. So we are not going to ask those who do not agree. Instead we will will write them off as outside the realm of orthodoxy. But the most popular and oldest surviving sect in Christendom says that all others are outside of the realm of orthodoxy. Well in that case we are going to do special pleading because we can't be outside of orthodoxy because we are us.

 

Excellent point, MM.

 

In my opinion--the way I've used orthodox re my own beliefs--once you bring in concepts like personal growth, Christ-as-myth, and Cosmic Christ--once you make these concepts central to what it means to be Christian, then you are no longer orthodox.

 

To be an orthodox Christian seems to mean that you believe in the historical person of Jesus as having been born of a virgin, crucified and died, risen on the third day, to save humankind of their sins so they can go to heaven when they die. It seems to also include baptism of some kind, and belief in heaven and hell.

 

So what about those Christians these days who hold to all the orthodox beliefs except conscious existence after death--are they not orthodox? Or those who hold it all--including an afterlife with a heaven and hell--but not a burning hell?

 

I've never studied the trinity enough to decide whether or not it is biblical. The Holy Ghost is prominent in both testaments so I assumed it is. There were too many other problems that hit me between the eyes--such as how can Jesus' death (dead physical body) get me into heaven (a spiritual place)? I researched this question--in vain--for about forty years.

 

I was convinced that God, being the just and compassionate entity he is claimed to be, would never ever ask anyone to die as a symbolic or substitutionary act so there absolutely had to be a practical reason. There must simply be no other way that God could have possibly over-powered the devil to enable human souls to enter the gates of heaven. What, exactly, was this obstacle?

 

I needed to know. It had to be far more concrete than anyone's unbelief or misbehaviour/sin. Logic dictated that much.

 

Christianity does not even address the issue, much less answer the question. In fact, one is not exactly allowed to ask the question out loud.

 

Since my salvation supposedly depends on this plan of salvation being possible/workable, yet Christianity does not even address the issue, I concluded that the answers don't exist and that there is no god behind the belief system.

 

HINT: If you ever invent a religion, be sure that you can provide concrete evidence for every single claim you make and that the logic is impeccable. If you claim that your religion is good for all people of all time be sure you that have investigated all conditions all people ever live in, past, present, and future. Above all, don't make claims you can't substantiate or prove.

[Antlerman]

On further thought I may be equating truth with orthodoxy in how I was approaching this. Yes, I take what Christians in the past that they codified as acceptable beliefs that became called orthodoxy, were in fact making a direct proclamation of what they define as Truth. Anything outside that is a heresy. The point of my line of reasoning was to challenge the grounds for anyone making such proclamations for others.

 

If the purpose of this thread is to correctly define who should be considered orthodox from a historical meaning of that word, what I am saying has little to do with this. I really could care less about that, as the way it is used is to use the symbol "orthodox" as a way to speak of what is valid belief, in other words correct or true belief. My approach was to dismantle the basis for that way of thinking. If there is not of any interest in exploring that than this is not the topic I had intended to start when I first said I was going to start one on this topic then I'll bow out and leave it to that discussion about historical meanings instead of what I had intended.

[R. S. Martin]

My apologies for the misunderstanding. I truly thought that was what you were saying. Thanks for clarifying. I think we're a lot closer in our thinking than it appeared to me.

 

There's still one item that I'm not clear on.

 

 

My point in that analogy is that it is comparable to a 10 year old proclaiming reality for everyone else, including you in your middle ages. That is invalid. And hence, why saying one view of a religions meaning is the 'right thinking' is invalid. There can be no actual, real orthodoxy for this one reason alone: we are all at different places in our growth, our stages of development.

 

To me, this is very confusing. In one sentence you talk about what a specific religion means--faith statements, I assume. In the next you talk about personal growth and development. In my mind, those are two separate and individual items. However, I see some of my sources on spiritual development have combined the study of psychological development with the study of theology. Thus, it occurs to me that perhaps by "meaning of religion" you are not referring to credal statements, but to something more emotional. I'm going to assume this is correct and address it below.

 

I agree that individuals go through growth and development while they are immersed in religion because large portions of the human population spend their entire lifetimes immersed in religion. They go through all the stages of life and emotional/spiritual development inside religion and have rich life experiences, ranging all the way from infancy to old age.

 

The same can also be said about physical conditions, ranging all the way from perfect health and fitness to the gravely ill or deformed and crippled. People go through treatment, or not, for these ailments while immersed in religion. While there are Christian denominations that make health their central feature, faith healing is definitely not what defines Christianity.

 

Likewise, I do not see that personal growth and development is the central feature of Christian doctrine per se, past or present. It is for a minority of denominations, perhaps. But it is not in the creeds and it is not an official part of orthodoxy so far as I can see.

 

I do not see orthodoxy making claims about what Christianity, or religion, means. It makes claims about what the cosmos is like, about beliefs regarding life, death, the universe, everything. For example, "in the beginning God created the world," "I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.," and "All that believe in me and are baptized shall have eternal life," etc.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, it was not until the psychologists of the twentieth century (of whom Carl Rogers was one) that we got obsessed with meaning in everything. In the nineteenth century academics were still describing the universe in meticulous and mechanical detail. They still thought science was a finite field and that once it was correctly understood how all the parts of the universe fitted together human investigation would move on to other things. It was also thought that God was pretty much an idea whose time had passed.

 

But religion did not go away. Scholars asked why? I suppose the idea of meaning in religion is one answer they came up with. In other words, since humans find psychological meaning and experience personal development and maturation via the symbolism of their religious backgrounds, religion is a far more complex phenomena than scholars earlier thought. Hence its "staying power."

 

I would guess Carl Jung's Man and His Symbols had something to do with this idea. Carl Rogers' very famous book "On Becoming a Person," as well as Abraham H. Maslow's "Psychology of Being" and the works of others, may have also contributed to this idea of meaning in religion. All of these are 20th century authors and not necessarily religious. I would need to see a documented example in order to accept that this (concept re meaning of religion) was traditionally part of orthodox Christian beliefs.

 

For more on spiritual development, there is a belief that adults are not all at the same stage. Read James W. Fowler's "Stages of Faith." (Here is a wikipedia article on it.) But that is an old book published in 1981. I used it for a course many years ago. My agnostic prof suggested not to use the concept of progressing stages, but different kinds of spirituality. There is literature out there for that idea, too.

[R. S. Martin]

You posted while I was writing...

 

as the way it is used is to use the symbol "orthodox" as a way to speak of what is valid belief, in other words correct or true belief.

 

So that is what you are trying to say?!? That use of the word is totally new to me and I did not understand that this is what you are trying to say.

 

That use of the word would fit Definition #4 in Dictionary.com: sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine.

 

I do not consider myself qualified to decide what Christians should believe. All I try to learn is what they do believe and why.

 

I think this answers my question or need for starting this thread. I thought people were seriously misusing the word, or had no understanding of it. That said, given the internal inconsistency of the Bible and theology, I have no idea how any non-Christian can decide what is correct or true belief if one doesn't just arbitrarily decide that traditional credal statements were correct.

 

On further thought I may be equating truth with orthodoxy in how I was approaching this. Yes, I take what Christians in the past that they codified as acceptable beliefs that became called orthodoxy, were in fact making a direct proclamation of what they define as Truth. Anything outside that is a heresy. The point of my line of reasoning was to challenge the grounds for anyone making such proclamations for others.

 

Excellent!

 

If the purpose of this thread is to correctly define who should be considered orthodox from a historical meaning of that word, what I am saying has little to do with this.

 

I wanted to know by what criteria people decided what was orthodox Christian belief. You have now told me, even if only by accident, that your criteria is "true belief." I guess we come from drastically different theological/religious backgrounds. Most people on these forums seem to see some form of evangelical as "true belief," while for me "evangelical" is the truly heretical.

 

My approach was to dismantle the basis for that way of thinking. If there is not of any interest in exploring that than this is not the topic I had intended to start when I first said I was going to start one on this topic then I'll bow out and leave it to that discussion about historical meanings instead of what I had intended.

 

I emphasized historical meanings because that was the only way I knew to identify orthodox. I would be really interested to know how you identify "true belief" of Christianity if you don't go by historical traditional beliefs as outlined in the creeds.

 

I definitely agree that "my way of seeing" does not apply to "everyone in the world." However, the way things are--if God created the world--does not change depending on the level of one's spiritual development. And if consuming a wafer and wine/grape juice is going to keep me out of a pit of fire when I die, I can consume a wafer and wine/grape juice every so often. These things are presented as empirical factual reality. As such, they would apply to everyone regardless of spiritual development.

 

It seems you don't accept that these things exist in empirical factual reality, and I take it that possibly a lot of evangelicals don't accept it, so my question is: How do they identify "true belief" or orthodoxy?

 

Maybe you don't want to go down this path.

 

Also, I think it good and right to get the message out that you wanted to. So I don't really care where this thread goes.. I've greatly enjoyed the discussion LivingLife and TD and some others were having.

[Antlerman]

Thanks Ruby for your responses! I'm excited to dig deeper into this with you. You offer good perspectives that help further my understanding. I'll offer a full response to some things you say in a little while.