Oh Dear~Aphrodite Questions Christianity, Specifically the Resurrection, Etc.

[sprinkles]

Hmm, do you mean that if one is an athiest or agnostic but avoids wrong doing you will find God's favour?

Perhaps, although I dont think that faith in God is like that, I think faith in God or knowledge of God is more about relief of the sorts of feelings which accompany doubt or uncertainty.

Not quite. I don't think avoiding doing wrong is enough either since none of us are righteous. I really believe that much.

I think that if nothing else, it involves a change of heart that must take place.

It's paradoxical to me because I won't accept a God that goes by the legalist, prescribed rules only without taking heart into account.

This means that just doing good is not good enough, and just believing the scriptures is not good enough either.

 

[cafe]

Rob Bell, who I consider an evangelical protestant, has proven that this is not biblically or scripturally based.

That is good to know. I will have to look into it.

 

[Lark]

That is good to know. I will have to look into it.

His book Love Wins covers it, the audiobook adaptation is alright but really an introduction to the book, he has published study guides and other material associated with Love Wins too. His views have divided the evangelical scene in the US and its satellites. It makes a lot of sense, although I wouldnt be a follower of Bell's or subscribe to all his views.

 

[Totenkindly]

Not quite. I don't think avoiding doing wrong is enough either since none of us are righteous. I really believe that much.

I think that if nothing else, it involves a change of heart that must take place.

It's paradoxical to me because I won't accept a God that goes by the legalist, prescribed rules only without taking heart into account.

This means that just doing good is not good enough, and just believing the scriptures is not good enough either.

I know I've mentioned it before, but I've always liked Lewis' "The Last Battle," and the whole approach between Aslan and Tash, where some who claimed to serve Aslan were actually aligned with Tash's heart, and vice versa. The problem is that knowledge isn't really the issue; knowledge is distorted all the time in this world, and we will never know "enough" to be perfectly consciously aligned. It's funny how often people in this world kill each other because they disagree on doctrine.

But I think our hearts and attitudes and behavior more accurately describe our character, than any verbalized doctrinal statement. Articulated doctrine is just stagnant words carved in stone, whereas real truth is living and breathing and flows through people and drives their actions and responses. We often can't even put the truth into words, we can only live it out.

 

[Lark]

Not quite. I don't think avoiding doing wrong is enough either since none of us are righteous. I really believe that much.

I think that if nothing else, it involves a change of heart that must take place.

It's paradoxical to me because I won't accept a God that goes by the legalist, prescribed rules only without taking heart into account.

This means that just doing good is not good enough, and just believing the scriptures is not good enough either.

I do believe that the important questions of this life are to do with ethics and what sorts of ethics are prescribed by or pleasing to God are very important, I do believe in legalism but I dont believe it is sufficient, if God was a serious legalist then there would be much more divine intervention of an obvious kind in life and not simply the possibility of it after death. There is forgiveness and love, like Rob Bell says love wins.

 

[cafe]

His book Love Wins covers it, the audiobook adaptation is alright but really an introduction to the book, he has published study guides and other material associated with Love Wins too. His views have divided the evangelical scene in the US and its satellites. It makes a lot of sense, although I wouldnt be a follower of Bell's or subscribe to all his views.

Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember seeing stuff about that. Probably should have made more of an impression on me than it did. I think I figured since I wasn't deciding who went where in the afterlife and none of us could really know anyway, it wasn't worth getting excited about. This is why you will never see me calling myself spiritual, but not religious.

 

[sprinkles]

I know I've mentioned it before, but I've always liked Lewis' "The Last Battle," and the whole approach between Aslan and Tash, where some who claimed to serve Aslan were actually aligned with Tash's heart, and vice versa. The problem is that knowledge isn't really the issue; knowledge is distorted all the time in this world, and we will never know "enough" to be perfectly consciously aligned. It's funny how often people in this world kill each other because they disagree on doctrine.

But I think our hearts and attitudes and behavior more accurately describe our character, than any verbalized doctrinal statement. Articulated doctrine is just stagnant words carved in stone, whereas real truth is living and breathing and flows through people and drives their actions and responses. We often can't even put the truth into words, we can only live it out.

Right.

This is why my faith is that if there is a God, God will know exactly what to do with me when I meet him. I mean I'm just such a little speck with my human mind that it is ridiculous.

But in the end I'd rather have God say "You know what, you honestly tried. In spite of all difficulties, you really tried. I welcome you."

Instead of "You thought you had it right. You thought you knew me, but you were wrong. You were spiteful, self righteous, and self absorbed. Go away from me."

 

[Totenkindly]

Right. This is why my faith is that if there is a God, God will know exactly what to do with me when I meet him. I mean I'm just such a little speck with my human mind that it is ridiculous.

This is why I think that a lot of our religion and trying list a bunch of rules and then following them to show our worth is just a silly endeavor. Well-meant? Perhaps. But absurd. It's like our attempt to control our own savory-ness in the eyes of some higher being so that we can get good things. it's beyond us to ensure that, if there is some higher deity, we will find favor and be selected for life.

But in the end I'd rather have God say "You know what, you honestly tried. In spite of all difficulties, you really tried. I welcome you."

Instead of "You thought you had it right. You thought you knew me, but you were wrong. You were spiteful, self righteous, and self absorbed. Go away from me."

Yes. Matthew 7.

I have this prayer attributed to Thomas Merton hanging on my bulletin board at work:

MY LORD GOD, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.

 

[Lark]

Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember seeing stuff about that. Probably should have made more of an impression on me than it did. I think I figured since I wasn't deciding who went where in the afterlife and none of us could really know anyway, it wasn't worth getting excited about. This is why you will never see me calling myself spiritual, but not religious.

I used to be the same. I think I know what you mean.

 

[sprinkles]

This is why I think that a lot of our religion and trying list a bunch of rules and then following them to show our worth is just a silly endeavor. Well-meant? Perhaps. But absurd. It's like our attempt to control our own savory-ness in the eyes of some higher being so that we can get good things. it's beyond us to ensure that, if there is some higher deity, we will find favor and be selected for life.



Yes. Matthew 7.

I have this prayer attributed to Thomas Merton hanging on my bulletin board at work:

I think I can legitimately say 'amen' to that. That's very rare for me to do, so take it for what it is.

 

[Beorn]

[MENTION=6336]AphroditeGoneAwry[/MENTION]

I'm sure the Beth Moore stuff was helpful even if I might nitpick at some of it.

If you want a very clear intelligent explanation of the evangelical/traditional Protestant view of the bible you won't find one any better than the following set of lectures by Dr. D.A. Carson who is a New Testament expert and played a strong role in the translation of the English Standard Version of the Bible. The series places a lot of emphasis on the themes and poetic nature of some of the bible, but Carson also makes clear what parts must be considered historical based on the nature of the literature.

The series intended for new Christians who are not familiar with the Bible and it takes them from genesis to revelation. It think if you understand how the story of Jesus fits into the broader story of the Bible it makes more sense.

The videos are up for free at http://thegospelcoalition.org/thegodwhoisthere/

As for your question, you can call yourself whatever you want, but you won't be considered orthodox by traditional Protestants, Catholics, or the Eastern Orthodox because you can't affirm apostle's creed.

 

[Beorn]

His book Love Wins covers it, the audiobook adaptation is alright but really an introduction to the book, he has published study guides and other material associated with Love Wins too. His views have divided the evangelical scene in the US and its satellites. It makes a lot of sense, although I wouldnt be a follower of Bell's or subscribe to all his views.

Yeah well, he lost his church over it.

I don't know about the merits of the book because I couldn't read more than two pages of his one to two sentence paragraphs.

 

[UniqueMixture]

You're almost there A. Don't give up. You'll find freedom yet

 

[Lark]

Yeah well, he lost his church over it.

I don't know about the merits of the book because I couldn't read more than two pages of his one to two sentence paragraphs.

I've not read the book, I listened to the audiobook and like I said its not actually a straight adaptation, its more like him talking to you about the book and telling you what appears on the pages and what's written about it afterwards.

I dont really follow though about the two sentence paragraphs, I didnt know he lost his church over the head of it, its a pretty enlightened religious view so I'm not surprised.

 

[Lark]

You're almost there A. Don't give up. You'll find freedom yet

Dont confuse atheism and freedom

 

[UniqueMixture]

Who said anything about atheism?

 

[Totenkindly]

I've not read the book, I listened to the audiobook and like I said its not actually a straight adaptation, its more like him talking to you about the book and telling you what appears on the pages and what's written about it afterwards.

I dont really follow though about the two sentence paragraphs, I didnt know he lost his church over the head of it, its a pretty enlightened religious view so I'm not surprised.

It was a little more complicated than suggested to you, as he didn't necessarily want to remain in that kind of environment either. This article covers it in a little more detail:

http://global.christianpost.com/news/rob-bell-tells-how-love-wins-led-to-mars-hill-departure-85995/

The American church is a wonderful institution, it is NOT open to alternatives on how to view things -- discussion is not really possible -- and so it almost immediately attacks anyone outside status quo.

I don't think I've read the book in full, but Bell writes in a very down-to-earth, basic level. Anyone can read it. I guess some people are mistaking simple writing for the broadest market for dumb writing below their level of dignity to bother to peruse.

 

[Jonny]

I'm always surprised when I find out someone isn't an atheist. I always give people the benefit of my doubts and assume they don't believe in fairy tales.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Christian Deism~

You're almost there A. Don't give up. You'll find freedom yet

What if I really don't want freedom?




So, I found three monotheisms that seem to fit what I believe: The Bahá'í Faith-

(pron.: /bəˈhaɪ/)[1] is a monotheistic religion founded by Bahá'u'lláh in 19th-century Persia, emphasizing the spiritual unity of all humankind.[2] There are an estimated five to six million Bahá'ís around the world in more than 200 countries and territories.[3][4]
In the Bahá'í Faith, religious history is seen to have unfolded through a series of divine messengers, each of whom established a religion that was suited to the needs of the time and the capacity of the people. These messengers have included Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and others. For Baha'is, the most recent messengers are the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh. In Bahá'í belief, each consecutive messenger prophesied of messengers to follow, and Bahá'u'lláh's life and teachings fulfilled the end-time promises of previous scriptures. Humanity is understood to be in a process of collective evolution, and the need of the present time is for the gradual establishment of peace, justice and unity on a global scale.

Theistic Rationalism-

Theistic rationalism is a hybrid of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, in which rationalism is the predominant element.[1] According to Thiessen, the concept of theistic rationalism first developed during the eighteenth century as a form English and German Deism.[2] The term was used as early as 1856, in the English translation of a German work on recent religious history.[3] Some have argued that the term properly describes the beliefs of some the Founding Fathers of the United States, including George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson.[4][5]
Theistic rationalists believe natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism typically coexist compatibly, with rational thought balancing the conflicts between the first two aspects.[4] They often assert that the primary role of a person's religion should be to bolster morality, a fixture of daily life.[4]
Theistic rationalists believe that God plays an active role in human life, rendering prayer effective.[4][5] They accept parts of the Bible as divinely inspired, using reason as their criterion for what to accept or reject.[6] Their belief that God intervenes in human affairs and their approving attitude toward parts of the Bible distinguish theistic rationalists from Deists.

and Christian Deism-

It adopts the ethics and non-mystical teachings of Jesus, while denying that Jesus was a deity. Scholars of the founding fathers of the United States "have tended to place the founders' religion into one of three categories—non-Christian deism, Christian deism, and orthodox Christianity."[8] John Locke and John Tillotson, especially, inspired Christian deism, through their respective writings.[9] Possibly the most famed person to hold this position was Thomas Jefferson, who praised "nature's God" in the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) and edited the "Jefferson Bible"—a Bible with all reference to revelations and other miraculous interventions from a deity cut out.

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. Because God does not control or interfere with his self sustaining Creation; its component systems work in concert to achieve the balanced natural processes that make up the physical world. As such, Human beings are "free agents in a free world." A "free agent" is someone who has authority and ability to choose his/her actions and who may make mistakes. A "free world" is one which ordinarily operates as it is designed to operate and permits the consequential properties of failure and accident to be experienced by its inhabitants. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. For deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles)—phenomena which deists regard with caution if not skepticism.

Although I do believe God is transcendent, I also believe that God is also immanent:

Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some theologians and metaphysicians of the great religious traditions affirm that God, or Brahman, is both within and beyond the universe (panentheism); in it, but not of it; simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.

I believe that God exists next to us, but within another plane of reality--the other side. And that all that keeps us from allowing God into us and with us, is ourselves. But that God is so intense, this is virtually impossible to do, and takes practice in meditation and transcendence, and feeling worthy of allowing the Divine into your being.



I am so relieved that I can still call myself a Christian, because I really dig Jesus and his teachings, but I do not feel like I should worship him as God, but consider him as more a mentor and guide to knowing God. In this way I still believe in the holy trinity as well:

Una trinitas et trina unitas​

 

[Beorn]

The American church is a wonderful institution, it is NOT open to alternatives on how to view things -- discussion is not really possible -- and so it almost immediately attacks anyone outside status quo.

Yeah, that's how institutions remain institutions. For evidence of this you can look at the decline of the mainline churches over the last fifty years despite the fact that they were following the broader cultural trend of "openmindedness."