Who is/isn't a Christian?

Some people define a Christian as someone who is of their own particular denomination, while others accept anyone who claims to be a Christian as a Christian. What is your opinion? Is there some 'lowest common denominator' of beliefs that all Christians must share in order to be 'Christian'?

And please, before you bite my head off, I'm just asking. I'm not proposing any parameters myself. Just curious what others think.

I guess a belief that Christ once walked the Earth would be a good start.

My answer: Classification, including definitions, are only useful to the extent they are "for" something. In different contexts--that is "for" something different—once could say that Vlad the Impaler was a Christian, or that he wasn't a Christian. You can't really argue the point.

#2 What does that have to do with it? Lots of atheists - myself included - have no problem with the notion that a man called Jesus Christ once existed and was crucified. Don't you have to believe there was something special about him before you can call yourself a Christian?

>2 OccamsHammer:

Christ means "messiah." It is a title, not a name. An atheist can—indeed should—believe Jesus walked the earth. But an atheist would not believe he was the Christ.

And belief that he was the Christ isn't enough either. The devil is no doubt quite aware of the fact, even if he/it wouldn't admit the fact.

4,5,6> Really? How many Christians do not believe that Jesus walked the Earth? At a minimum one should accept this fact. Not all atheists (or followers of other faiths) believe he ever existed. Tim, I said what I meant to say. One has to believe that *the* Christ or the Messiah walked the Earth. If Jesus was merely a remarkable man then he would not be worthy of worship. And finally, I said such a belief was a start, not the only requirement.

(Which Jesus?: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus)

OH, I take it that use of the word "Christ" itself implies acknowledgement of the divinity that Christians ascribe to Jesus, whereas plain "Jesus" does not—do I understand correctly?

Sorry. I meant to be directing that Booksloth, not you. The point was the BS said s/he has "no problem with the notion that a man called Jesus Christ once existed and was crucified."

We're on the same page :)

I think it's more than that Christ existed. I don't think there is any doubt that there was a man named Jesus. The point is you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and that you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Those would seem to be starting points to me.

>10 barney67: Your language seems to describe your beliefs. Just what does it mean to call Jesus "Lord" and "Savior?" In what way is the Bible the "inspired" word of God?

To me, a Christian is someone who considers himself a follower of Jesus, called the Christ. Clearly lots of leeway there, room for all sorts, most of whom wouldn't even begin to agree on what they "believe."

>11 msladylib:

I don't think there are many in history who would call themselves "Christian" who'd disagree with "Lord" and "Savior" or "son of God" for that matter. You'd find slightly fewer who'd add "God." But since the first centuries, you're talking small numbers who don't subscribe to the full Nicene formulation.

12 small numbers who don't subscribe to the full Nicene formulation?

Who really knows what the actual person in the pew subscribes to? I don't. The denominations, okay.

My question about "Lord" and "Savior" was meant to imply that we can't really get into anyone else's head and figure out what they mean, or perhaps, more to the point, feel about these concepts. At the time the earliest Christians were calling Jesus "Lord" the idea was over and against what the Roman Empire felt about calling the likes of Augustus "Lord." The Nicene creed only came into existence when Christianity was no longer outlawed; thanks, Constantine.

Anyone can call themselves a "Christian", or anything else for that matter. I could say I'm Lance Armstrong, Hindu, and a woman. Just because I say it doesn't necessarily make it true.

In my opinion, to be a "true" Christian, one should have faith in the Christian God, follow the Bible as best you can, believe Jesus died for your sins and rose again, show your faith through your works, and try to live a good life.

That's just my opinion though.

Who really knows what the actual person in the pew subscribes to? I don't. The denominations, okay.

True. I'd be particularly interested to know in the case of those denominations who say the (or a) creed regularly. It seems likely to me that, whether because of boredom or the rather technical language of parts, many couldn't rephrase what they have been saying once a week for their whole life...

As one of those who say the Nicene Creed once a week or more some times here is my take on it. I could rephrase the whole thing for you but Christianity isn't that complicated.

The Creed is an outline of what Christianity is, but being a Christian begins with faith and ends with love. Faith that God sent His son to die a sacrificial death for us lowly humans to reconcile us to God for sin. To say you are a Christian is not enough. A true Christian believes in their heart the entire Gospel and follows Jesus teachings because they love God. Just to say I am in X or Y denomination isn't enough. Christianity is not tied to a church. It is used many times by churches with their own agendas. Christianity is a connection between your soul and God reconnected through Jesus Christ and through love.

The problem with the creed is that it presupposes much else. It wasn't written to provide a thumbnail of Christian belief—the church it was written for already believed—but to combat certain powerful heresies of the time. Nobody today needs to be told that Jesus is "one in being" with God the father, for example, or not in a quarter-page summary.

I think creeds are like Constitutions—the less you change them the better. But it creates a disconnect.

Why do you think no one needs to be told Jesus is one being with God the father? Truth doesn't change. It was true then it is true now. I agree that less change it better. Why rewrite it, it is still true.

Because the heresies it was intended to combat—especially Arianism—are not held by any Christians now alive. One could lard the creed up with other such formulae—that Jesus has two wills, for example—that would also be true, and also not live issues. One such change did make it into the creed—a Spanish addition that the holy spirit proceeds "from the Father and the son." It too was meant to combat a dead theology, Arianism again. The issue is something of a stumper to modern Christians.

Ah, I see. Jehovah's Witnesses have similar beliefs, and they consider themselves Christian. They believe Jesus was created.

That's true. You can add Unitarians—especially a century and those who are still Unitarian Christians—to the mix. But we're talking about marginal groups. Catholics and Orthodox do not say the creed every Mass to distinguish themselves from groups which, in total, are less than 1% of their numbers.

>13 msladylib: & 19

But reflection on the Creed helps to deepen understanding. What we personally believe changes over time as we mature. The Church expresses a a more fully formed theology than an individual could ever reach or achieve. I feel as if I'm growing into faith, with Church teachings (Roman Catholic, in my case) proving right time and time again, after much questioning and searching.

I, too, like the Nicene Creed as a concise statement of Christian beliefs. I've found over time that I use the creed as a starting point for meditation. I also like that we (Episcopalians) say it every week. It's a touchstone as is the general confession and the Eucharist.

That said, I really, really need to go back to church regularly. I've been only a handful of times since 2004 mostly due to burn-out (Sunday School teacher, VBS and vestry) and then laziness, now habit. Oh, and throw some severe bitterness in there (not related to my parish -- it was personal). I'm better now but very lazy. I sure wish my church had a Saturday evening service like the Catholics.

Pray for me.

>22 2wonderY: 2wonderY, I really like your image of deepening, growing, maturing, and the idea that the Church expresses a more fully formed theology than an individual. I would broaden it and say that the Church is also deepening, growing, maturing, which is why some criticism of the Church for what it did or said in the distant past (or indeed criticism of the God of the Old Testament) is wide of the mark. The Church's understanding of the Divine was at an earlier stage then than it is now, and is at an earlier stage now than it will be in the future.

Amen, John!

pmackey, you are not holding up your part by your absence. You and your environment (people and places, your piece of the Kingdom) are your responsibility to present to the Lord on a regular basis. No one else can cover exactly the same terrritory. That realization goads me out of a comfortable bed each week. (well, most weeks; I try to negotiate exceptions sometimes.)

Does that help?

>25 2wonderY:. "No," he mumbles, "...it just makes me feel even more guilty...." He rolls over and resumes snoring.

Seriously, I will try. But I always feel very motivated until Sunday morning. Sigh.

If you want incentive to go to church—apart from having a child, which helped for me—I recommend throwing yourself into whatever charitable thing the church does. Food pantry? Whatever. You'll feel more connected to the church and its people. You'll even want to see them on Sunday because you like them. That may sound shallow, but community in a church isn't a bug. It's a feature!

Personally, I've tried to make my way into a whole string of things the church does and found myself rebuffed by people whose turf it was. I recently failed to prove to the webmaster—whose website is TERRIBLE—that I knew anything about building websites...

Tim is right. It really helps to get out of the pew and into something where Christian beliefs meet the road. I help feed homeless. When you put what you believe in action it makes the Gospel more real. Plus is a good example for kids in your life.

#27, you make perfect sense. Only you can be responsible for your bit of the body. My husband hasn't been to church in years. He says, "Put in a good word for me" every time I walk out the door to go. I always answer, "No you have to do that for yourself, that is between you and God."

Bottom line, The creed is a tool to inspire Christian action.

Hey, this thread made me think of one of my blog posts....

http://lorileighriddles.com/2011/06/28/tell-someone/

Re 27, Tim, that was the burnout problem. I'd been so committed and involved that I was burning out. So when I was going on business travel for six months, I had to step down from everything. What a sense of relief I felt. It was good to be free. When I came home I tried going back a few times, but the bed on Sunday morning is magnetic....

You're right, my children were my incentive for going back in 1994. That and I felt a spiritual hunger. I couldn't have asked for a more supportive parish. Good people and more than willing to share. However, there may have been a problem if I tried taking over something like the choir, kitchen or garden committee. That might've drawn blood.

Sorry to hear you're not qualified to do a website. Bummer.

I can imagine burn-out on those things. At the moment, however, I'm having the opposite problem--flame but nothing to burn. Maybe we should switch. You go to my church. I'll do your website :)

A) I almost think we need a modifier before the word Christian. What is an orthodox Christian? (Someone who accepts the truth of the Nicene Creed.) What is a practicing Christian? (Someone who accepts Jesus as their savior, and follows him as Lord.) What is a gnostic Christian, a Unitarian Christian, an evangelical Christian, a...well you get the picture.

Granted most Christians are of the Orthodox type, and of those, a great many would subscribe to the notion that one must be a practicing Christian.


As to the filioque, (the "and from the Son" part of the Nicene Creed, a good part of the Church (the Orthodox part) thinks that was a modern insertion that mucked up the original theology. (I tend to agree with that assessment.)

...most Christians are of the Orthodox type...
...a good part of the Church (the Orthodox part) thinks that was a modern insertion

Just for clarity: that's two quite different uses of the word "Orthodox". The first (usually orthodox with a small o) refers to those who adhere to a more or less conservative (or dogmatic, or biblical) theological position and think it important to do so (i.e. value the concept of orthodoxy). The second (Orthodox with a big O) refers to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The two groups overlap, but most "orthodox" Protestants couldn't give a monkey's about the filioque.

(As it happens, I am neither orthodox nor Orthodox. Many, perhaps most, self-described Christians would not regard me as one.)

My bad. I went back and changed the first reference to a small O and missed the second. You are spot on.

I don't think you can use "orthodox" that way. Evangelicals in particular are always going on about how they are "orthodox," by which they mostly mean that they are scriptural extremists, tolerate no wiggly stuff about gays or the possibility of God's salvation extending to wiggly people. At the same time they are—IMHO—quite distant from early church teaching on any number of issues—authority, tradition, liturgy, etc. They may be preserving the truth, but it is a modern truth which Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental cannot but regard as a profoundly heretical one.

I think the standard tree of historical branching is mostly all we need. The tree tells the story. As with language, there is a certain "Sprachbund" effect too—influences beyond the tree. But the tree is the best metaphor for understanding the differences.

a good part of the Church (the Orthodox part) thinks that was a modern insertion that mucked up the original theology

Everyone agrees it was a modern insertion—although the Medieval papacy briefly wandered into an ignorance that made it say the Greeks had REMOVED it. The question is whether the change is material and whether MAKING the change was licit. One or both excite different orthodox groups.

When I say orthodox, I merely mean those who assent to the Nicene Creed. Evangelicals do not use that word as much, at least not since the Orthodox exodus of a decade ago. Maybe those who read Chesterton, but they are not going to be your hardliners.

Now, when fundamentalists use the word orthodox, they mean exactly what you are saying; strict inerrancy and moral standards.

I think a useful touchpoint might be the "mere" Christianity of Lewis' Mere Christianity. While not—and not intended—to be a full theology, it's some high percentage of the way to describing Christian belief.

Opponent of it divide into two camps. On the one side we have "conservative" Christians, eg., this:

"One area where Lewis deviates from traditional-orthodox Christianity is that he betrays a belief in Darwinian evolution throughout. … Additionally, this view of creation undercuts a trust in biblical inerrancy, which is a core value shared by conservative-evangelical Christians. … The final doctrinal error Lewis apparently held to is that he seemed to be at least partially an inclusionist. He said, “There are people in other religions who… belong to Christ without knowing it” – This is untenable from a “common” Christian perspective."

On the other we have Catholics disappointed to find too little about Mary and nothing about structure or authority. See for example a rather snippy chapter in C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church.

It's an interesting—and fruitless—question to ask where Lewis would be today since his middle-ground has largely vanished or be denuded of all vitality.

>37 timspalding:

I think you mean, probably deliberately and perhaps appropriately, opponents within a certain spectrum of Christianity.

Lewis also has critics like Beversluis for what they perceive as broader shortcomings.

I worked for some years for an interdenominational agency, and we were often asked to produce an agreed theological position. We resisted believing that whatever statement of faith you write down will itself cause divisions. We stated that churches could be members if they believed that Jesus is the Christ and that the Bible is the source of their knowledge about Jesus and faith. We said that there was no definitive form of words for this statement.This approach kept together a disparate group from Roman Catholic to Baptist and Pentecostal groups.

That's different from asking whether an individual is a Christian or not. Ultimately only God knows that; and as faith is more about God believing in me than my feeble attempts to believe in God, I'm not sure what purpose is served by trying to define who is and who isn't.
"For the LORD is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations. " (Psalm 100:5)
God's faithfulness not ours is the issue.

The more I read that last post, the better I like it, and should have remembered from my Calvin that the Elect are "hidden" in the sense that God does not publish a list. I am also thinking of the parable of the sheep and the goats, where the sheep unaware that they have been serving Jesus.

I am reminded of the story of a Mennonite man who was asked by a street preacher whether he was a Christian. He took out a piece of paper and wrote down several names. "These are the names of my family, friends and employer. You better ask them. I could tell you anything."

39:Jesus is the Christ and that the Bible is the source of their knowledge about Jesus and faith

When you're talking multiple denominations this is a very good definition. When I'm within my own denomination, I prefer the Nicene Creed. However, how a person interprets that Creed is an individual matter within very broad parameters. I think it's far better for a church to be inclusive than exclusive, otherwise we'll keep suffering schisms. The Bible says by their fruits you'll know them, so I hope my actions speak louder than any words I utter.

The World Council of Churches has some rather nice—in both senses of the word—ways of getting around disagreements. They have a "basis," which is something less than a creed. The do not require that the word "church" in World Council of Churches implies that all the participants recognize that the WCC "is" the church, or even that all or any other members are churches at all. Still, they Orthodox have always felt a little funny about their Protestant ways of doing business, and the Catholic Church has never joined.

>39 TedWitham: When I asked in my original post who is/isn't a Christian, I meant in terms of doctrinal beliefs. Of course, whether an individual is a Christian or not is between the believer and his/her Creator.

By the way, it's nice to see someone quoting the Bible, especially with chapter and verse (not just paraphrasing). It's surprisingly rare in this "Christianity" group.

It's sad to see "Christians" so ready use ironic quotation marks.

> 42 Tim, I don't know if it's due to typos or my tired brain . . . but I'm having trouble deciphering your post. Especially the third sentence.

As for this thread as a whole, I find it interesting that folks are mostly latching onto the idea of a creed as the definition of what makes a person "Christian." I am part of a purposely non-creedal Christian denomination, so I would never use a creedal confession as the criterion for evaluating what makes a person Christian. Also, I want to emphasize that we are a denomination, not a stand-alone "non-denominational" mega-church. We have an educated clergy and a centuries-old history.

I say this is what makes a person Christian: Living with the intent to be a disciple of the Christ, thereby patterning your life after the witness and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.

Edited to correct nasty spelling error.

>45 walk2work:

You wrote:

By the way, it's nice to see someone quoting the Bible, especially with chapter and verse (not just paraphrasing). It's surprisingly rare in this "Christianity" group.

That strikes me as criticism, that the group and the rest of us aren't coming up to your expectations of Christianity, which involves lots of quoting chapter and verse—and questioning the Christianity people who don't do that. Correct me if your quotes were merely decorative.

As to your point, there's clearly a difference between credal Christianity and non-credal ones. Considering that all Christianity was credal for 3/4 of the faith's history, and that today less than a quarter of Christians belong to denominations that don't read the creed regularly in every or most services, and truly non-credal Protestants represent an even small slice, I find it hard to dismiss as a useful measure (among many) of answering the question.

> 46 Tim, that's not me you're quoting, it's madpoet. I was referring all the way back to your post #42, something about the World Council of Churches not using the word "church" ?? /*puzzled*

>45 walk2work: The Nicene Creed is sort of touchstone for Christianity. Yes, there are churches that purposely do not have credal statements and that doesn't make them less Christian. The creed, though, as I see it offers a summary of core Christian beliefs, which I find helpful.

I've often wondered why God has allowed the Christian faith to fracture into so many different groups. Part of it of course is our free will which God honors. I was raised in one church and converted to another as an adult; IMO no one church can meet the diverse needs of every individual Christian. I was dying in my old denomination -- not because there was anything hugely wrong -- I found new life and a style of worship that reconnected me to God and our Christian common life.

I respect that many people use one or more creeds as a test of faith. I grew up in a denomination that does so. But I find it interesting that so many people use orthodoxy - literally, "right belief" - as the test of faith, when the One that Christians profess to worship is someone who so emphasized orthopraxy - "right practice" - in his life and ministry, that he sacrificed his life for us. That's a physical act, not a verbal testimony.

IMHO, Christianity took a bad wrong turn when the church decided that words matter more than actions. You can say all you want about what you believe. It's how you live that counts. Ask the sheep and goats, if you don't believe me.

>46 timspalding:

Apologies to you! The point about church is that the constituents all have different ecclesiologies. Many or all of the Orthodox members wouldn't understand the protestant churches to be churches. Catholics regard the Orthodox as churches, but Protestants as "ecclesial communities." I find this stuff hair-splitting—or rather voodoo ontology—but the point is that churches don't need to adopt a ecclesiology of equality or equivalency of members to joint the WCC.

>48 pmackey:

That's a very interesting point. One response to "ut unum sint" might be "we're better off separate!" I'd split the difference. I think the Catholic church has lost something with each successive split from it. Each schism and heresy has had a primary effect—removing the schismatics and heretics—and a secondary—constraining the legitimate diversity of Catholic opinion. Erasmus died a Catholic, being sympathetic with many Protestant views but refusing to split the church. He wouldn't be a Catholic today because the church would no longer welcome him. It's so obvious that it hardly needs saying, but anyone who thinks unity can be achieved without a expanded tolerance for a diversity of views is out of touch with reality.

>49 walk2work:

There's a lot to what you say.

>50 timspalding: I think the Catholic church has lost something with each successive split from it. Each schism and heresy has had a primary effect—removing the schismatics and heretics—and a secondary—constraining the legitimate diversity of Catholic opinion.

I absolutely agree. The downside of the schisms is that Christianity as a faith is diminished. Each "rump" is less than the whole. When I was searching for a new church home back in the '90s, one of my desires was to return as close to the main trunk as possible. Some fundamentalist churches/denominations believe that means recreating the faith and organization of the early Christian church. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches hold that they are closest to the root and trunk of the early church. The argument can and will go on forever.

I wanted so badly to become a Catholic because I did feel that it is historically closer to Jesus and the apostles. What prevented me, though, was the claimed infallibility of the Pope when he speaks from the chair; the veneration of Mary to the detraction of Jesus; oh, and I thought it insane not to allow priests to marry or ordain woman. If I'd been raised Catholic none of these would have been issues. I did feel though that if I was going to convert I needed to convert to a church to whose doctrines I could wholeheartedly subscribe. I found what I was looking for in the Episcopal Church. It was the catechism in the Book of Common Prayer that convinced me.

>49 walk2work: re orthopraxy versus orthodoxy... Yes it is what we do that most effectively demonstrates what we believe. That said, it's my understanding that Christians have always put the emphasis on right beliefs. IMO it's because we assume that with the right beliefs the right actions will follow.

>51 pmackey:

FWIW, as a former Protestant, I had to roll over the same bumps you did. They resonate.

I get over infalibility through the fact that it's not been commonly exercised, is nor "oracular" in nature, and is not theologically connected to the (mostly bad) grown in effective papal power. The veneration of Mary strikes me as attested very early and was alway important, despite an almost continuous ratcheting up in recent centuries, and more central to Catholic culture than theology. That is, I think Protestants tend to think Catholics think things about Mary that even Marian devotees would never believe. I think the Mary "coredemptrix" people are outright heretics, but even they don't understand the term as a Protestant might think Married priests is not a theological issue but an organization-of-the-church issue which can, and I expect, will change. I don't have strong feelings about female priests. I think N. T. Wright's arguments on the topic may be right, but don't regard it as a central injustice because becoming a priest is not a right but a calling and a status (especially for bishops) that only has meaning when it expresses the clear will of a community—a community which doesn't want them. More importantly being Catholic means accepting certain processes and a general willingness to not split the church over issues over which consensus can't be achieved.

Any Catholic with some "liberal" tendencies is going to feel the pull of Anglicanism. But it just strikes me as weak—desperately weak. Anglicanism has never been strong in the United States, except through the political and monetary prestige of its members. By some measures it's been declining since 1800. Overseas while it's strong in Africa, the numbers in Britain are just disastrous. I listen to a Podcast by the church in Wales. Apparently the Welsh church has been cut in half in the last 20 years. Apart from doctrinal issues, I find that record extremely depressing, and therefore a sign of a church that is not—in some undefinable way—working. One should perhaps not pick church like one picks racehorses...

Do you know what I mean? Does it resonate?

>51 pmackey: Christians have always put the emphasis on right beliefs.

That is historically true, as far as I am aware. I wonder, though, how much of that was a reaction against Judaism, once the split between the Jewish synagogue and the followers of The Way (proto-church) became irreparable. Jesus sided strongly with the prophetic thread of Judaism, that is, the do-justice thread. The synoptic gospels attest to this beyond doubt. (Not so sure about John; I have not done the thorough theological study of the Fourth Gospel as I have been wanting to do.)

As I have said, most days I am more interested in what Jesus the Christ thought and did, than what 2000 years of human interpretation (wiggling?) has done.

>46 timspalding: Actually, I didn't mean to use the quotes ironically. At least, not consciously. But it doesn't seem at all odd to you that in this entire thread, about what it means to be a Christian, only one person (not me, I must admit) quoted the Bible? And that's not unusual on the threads I've seen in this group.

Check many of the other threads in the Christianity group, and you'll find C.S. Lewis or the church fathers quoted more often than the Bible. And when the Bible is quoted, it is quoted loosely- paraphrased- most times. I'm not criticizing anyone's Christianity, but I think we need to refer to the Bible more in these discussions. And when we do quote the Bible, we should take care to quote it exactly. (Adding 'chapter and verse' just keeps the quoter honest.)

Lisa: "Where does the Bible say that?"
Reverend Lovejoy: "Oh, somewhere in the back."
-The Simpsons

>52 timspalding: Any Catholic with some "liberal" tendencies is going to feel the pull of Anglicanism. But it just strikes me as weak—desperately weak.

Yes, and many Episcopalians feel the pull of Catholicism as well. I don't see Anglicanism as weak in and of itself; it is Christendom itself that is weak and declining. The world isn't the 19th Century any more and much of the culture that supported Christian churches is gone, long gone. Somehow, Christianity must rediscover its vitality (apart from living in the past fundamentalism). Grow or fade away. Evolve or die. It isn't all bleak. I just feel bleak at the moment: I'm tired and wondering why it has to be so hard.

There's so much more I'd like to say. I know I could have said it better without being depressing. And there were several other things in your post I wanted to comment on but I need to get the grill going for supper.

>26 pmackey: Seriously, I will try. But I always feel very motivated until Sunday morning. Sigh.

I know quite of few people who experience this. I wonder what it is?

>55 pmackey:

Big questions--the biggest. Some things look different from different parts of the world, but the crisis is everywhere. We could and probably should devote a dozen threads and not exhaust the issue. For me, being part of a church that is either holding its own or growing is comforting. But there's no denying the problem.

I know quite of few people who experience this. I wonder what it is?

I used to feel this way sometimes. I hardly do now. For me it's critical that I live near my church. That sounds stupid, but it helps that I don't have to drive 30 minutes, find parking, etc. I had it even better until recently, when I went to the church around the corner. They changed their mass schedule so I walk 10 minutes or drive 2. The fact that I can find on-street parking near my church during mass is a sign of deep problems for Catholicism. But, well, I gain from it! ;)

>57 timspalding: Some things look different from different parts of the world, but the crisis is everywhere

I agree with both parts of that sentence. Christianity in Africa certainly doesn't have the feel of being "weak and declining" (>55 pmackey:); it is vibrant and growing. But somehow one still feels that there is a global crisis that we are also part of. Not sure exactly what that it is.

If you get a chance, take a look at The Future Church by John Allen, which tries to take a truly global look at Catholicism. He has a number of interesting chapters on the shift from north to south and what it will mean for Catholicism in the next century. Basically, he thinks the issues that Europe and America get so worked up about aren't going to be of diminishing importance as South America and Africa, who have different concerns, become the effective center of Catholicism in the world.

He probably wouldn't agree with me, and you may think me very uncouth to say it, but I don't think Catholics—or Christians—should take particular consolation in the idea that while the Church is dead or dying in Europe and certainly declining in the United States, it is strong in the third world. By and large development is inversely correlated to religion. Put bluntly, the best explanation for the difference in religious adherence between, say, central Europe and central Africa a is economic--and everything that goes with that. If, as we all hope, Subsaharan Africa becomes far richer, healthier, better educated, more open to the world, more socially open (for example, more open to homosexuality), and better ruled it will almost certainly follow the rest of the world in being much less religious too.

This rule has few exceptions. The only really good one is the United States, which is both highly religious and highly developed. But even we don't entirely buck the trend. The richest, best-educated parts of the country are less religious than the rest. The Catholic church in particular is declining rapidly in the white Irish and Italians immigrants that defined Catholicism for the last 150 years or so. These groups have moved in the course of a few generations from poverty and strong communal bonds, based on ethnicity and religion and forged in opposition to richer WASP culture, to the top of the heap, with no barriers to their advancement. Not surprisingly they are now leaving the church—and reproducing below replacement levels to boot. The church's future strength—and projections have the church staying about even for the next fifty years or more—rely on a continuous influx of poorer, less well-educated immigrants. Sadly, to the extent these groups achieve education and economic advancement, they too will fall away from the church. Still, America is an exception, and is clearly doing something right.

If I might be permitted a tangent, it seems to me that the faithfulness of Africa is a recurrent theme in conservative American Christian culture. It bears comparison to how Europe once thought of "Prester John," a far-off and powerful ally against the enemy, which Christians must "link up with" to defeat the enemy. Except Prester John was an ally against an external enemy—Islam—not against an internal one, liberalism and unbelief. Best of all, to a country still guilty over centuries of racial oppression by Christians—with Conservative Christians overrepresented among the oppressors—these far-off conservative allies are black! Thus Conservative evangelicals are in love with the notion that, while America sinks into unbelief, Africa is "holding the line." (After all, in Uganda they still have strong laws against homosexuals!) And Conservative Episcopalians, upset over female priests, female bishops and—again—homosexuals, broke bonds with the US church and put themselves under the authority of African bishops.

Anyway, in the near future Africa will indeed serve as a bastion of more traditional Christianity, and Christians the world over should be glad that Christianity is still so vital there. But the big task is to figure out how Catholicism—indeed Christianity—can coexist and thrive together with rising income, education and freedom.

I was curious as to how creedal the Armenian Church is and found out from a Wikipedia article (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed ) that they use an alternate version of the Nicene Creed. The Armenian Church avoids the filioque issue by not describing any procession.

>59 timspalding: Time will tell, Tim, whether you're right on the demographic and socio-economic projections about religion. I don't want to say you're wrong, but there's a part of me that feels (hopes?) that Africa will buck the trend and move in a slightly different direction from western countries. We'll see.

the faithfulness of Africa is a recurrent theme in conservative American Christian culture

Sadly, that is probably true. But I would add that western conservatives who try to use Africa as an example have very little understanding of the real dynamics. "Conservative" and "liberal" labels do not have a great deal of relevance here. Rather it is a different culture and worldview, with different political underpinnings. In Africa there may be strong opposition to homosexuality on cultural grounds, but that doesn't mean they buy into the rest of the conservative package which usually goes with it in the USA. "Pro-life" has not been hijacked by single-issue anti-abortionists; African churches are generally concerned with a wide range of life-related issues including war, peace, torture, extrajudicial execution, maternal health care, malnutrition, disease, poverty, people trafficking, HIV/AIDS, human dignity and rights, and more. I don't think I've seen a single reference to any of the hot US conservative Christian issues in any statements issued by Sudanese churches (even the evangelical ones) over the last few years. Sadly that might change; I'm already aware of one US congressman who is trying to stir up South Sudanese church leaders on issues of abortion and homosexuality vis a vis the new constitution of South Sudan. Politically, the anti-colonial (or anti-neo-colonial) discourse is still of greater importance than the Cold War and "War on Terror" constructs which interest the west.

I have yet to understand how conservative Christians in the U.S. could so focus on one issue as to be blind to all others. I can understand that they would feel that the sanctity of life from conception is important, but to the exclusion of human trafficking which I see as a much more serious problem. Or substance abuse? Or sustainable living?

As stewards of the earth, we believers have done poorly in the past, especially when you consider the Kingdom of God is supposed to be here and now.

I just discovered this thread and will return to in order to gain a better understanding on the many and varied comments within it. Suffice it to say that I am in the process of becoming a Deacon within the Roman Catholic Church. I consider myself to be an orthdox leaning Roman Catholic. That is to say that I adhear to the Magisterium of the RCC. I think that those who for one reason or another disagree with it to be discenting members of the Church. This lasts until their difficulty causes them to join another part of the spectrum of what is called Christianty. Two quick items, married priests and woman priests. If one feels strongly enough then you have the choice to a faith that more closely aligns to what you believe in. We have progressed beyond the idea of the Inquisition. That is to say you have every right to join a faith that more closely resembles what you believe in. What you do not have is the right to call yourself a Roman Catholic. Whailing about the patriarchy or the deaf Papacy serves no purpose excepf to raise your blood pressure. People such as Hans Kuhn should have left what is considered to be the Roman Catholic Church and find a place more pleasing to his sensibilties.
(Edited for typos.)

63: "What you do not have is the right to call yourself a Roman Catholic. "

Here in the United States, we do. It's the first amendment to our Constitution. Of course, it also secures the right of others to announce their disagreement.

63

By 'Orthodox' leaning, I presume you mean orthodox with a small o. Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox are quite accepting of married priests (they just can't become bishops). And Eastern Rite Catholics in Orthodox countries can be married also.

>63 Barton:, 65 And the Roman Catholic Church has ordained thousands of married men as priests in the last decade or so, former Anglicans who became Roman Catholics, to say nothing of the new special arrangements being made for the latest batch of Roman Catholic married priests who are coming over from Anglicanism.

>64 cjbanning: Surprising enough not everybody resides in the Unitede States. More seriously you can dissent and the Church does not prevent dissent but go dissent somewhere else.

65 You are absolutely correct that shoud have used orthadoc with a small o.

66 You are correct that married Anglican priests entered the Roman Catholic Church through a dispensation. This might be the possible change in the future but I wouldn't bet on that in the forseeable future.

>67 Barton: Married priests entered the Church through a dispensation as you say, and I agree that any larger-scale change is not likely in the near future. Presumably there was a lot of discussion about the married Anglican priests before the dispensation was granted. Does that make all the bishops and others who discussed it (including former Anglicans who had only just joined the Catholic Church) into "dissenters" who should have left the Church? I'm challenging your use of the word dissenter in >63 Barton: and your suggestion that they should leave; I find it simplistic. It is perfectly legitimate for a Catholic to have doubts and to raise questions. If a bishop ordains a married man without dispensation he is, no doubt, a dissenter. If a bishop discusses the issue of married priests, as many did before the dispensation was given for former Anglican priests, he is not a dissenter, merely a loyal Catholic grappling with the signs of the times.

Incidentally, who is Hans Kuhn? Or is that a typo for Hans Kung?

First It was Hans Kung that I was referring to. My apologies.

To your second point and the idea of who and what a dissenter, There has been a long tradition in the Roman Catholioc Church in accepting external groups and no they are not discenters neither the groups in question. In my view which may very well be Simplistic is the discenters can appear on both wings of the political spectrum. For examplethe conservative side throws up the Pious X Society which reject all movement of the church since the foundation in 1970 and their Roman collars are on so site that it restricts real thought.
On the other hand or should I say are of the spectrum you have groups such as The Reformed Liberal Catholic Church, The Church of Saint Thomas, as well as The Universal Catholic Church amungst others. They do not seem to be able to help themselves. Splintering into increasingly smaller groups of recieved truth. The one thing which they have in common is that the Vatican has it all wrong.
Below are summations of som groups as posted on Wikkipedia. I took it as a fairly ojective on this subject. Some might object to the use aof the atholic Encyclopedia. I yet to have to time to test the veracity of the statements quoted below. I am certain that some others will correct them if needed.

The Reformed Liberal Catholic Church began facilitating the ordination of women to all orders before other branches of the Liberal Catholic Church. It doesn't emphasise theosophy but holds that theosophy is a lens through which we can gain a deeper and broader understanding of religion. Clergy and laity are free to accept or reject this, but are expected to accept those who have differing views.

The Church of Saint Thomas Int. Ordination of women to all orders. There are no barriers to holy orders for any qualified individual. It doesn't emphasise theosophy but holds that theosophy is a lens through which we can gain a deeper and broader understanding of religion. Clergy and laity are free to accept or reject this, but are expected to accept those who have differing views. CSTI does concentrate on the teachings of the founding Bishops of the Liberal Catholic Church in the training of Clergy.

The Universal Catholic Church, like the LCCI, does not require any belief in theosophical tenets, leaving that to the individual. It practices the ordination of women to all Holy Orders, including the episcopate.

Barton, meet LibraryThinger Joansknight.

Joansknight, Barton.

That is to say that I adhear to the Magisterium of the RCC

The question is: What is the Magisterium? Some seem to believe that Magisterium is whatever the current Pope says, in any capacity, whatever a current curial cardinal says, especially if they agree with it, whatever the councils they like say... and practically nothing else. The "teaching" of the church is a good deal more--and less--than this.

People such as Hans Kuhn should have left what is considered to be the Roman Catholic Church and find a place more pleasing to his sensibilties.

The Catholic church has a process for kicking people out. That process is legally specified, detailed, lengthy, intellectually rigorous and does not involve you. It is designed to teach--magisterium means teaching--and therefore to correct. It involves a cycle of teaching and opportunities to repent--only "obstinate" heretics are thrown out. It is designed to keep people in the church through that teaching.

Leaving the church is a serious thing. If you do adhere to orthodoxy, you should feel this more than others. The Catholic church is not just some denomination along a Christian "spectrum." It is the divinely instituted means by which salvation is made available to man. While the church does not assert that only Catholics can be saved, it certainly thinks it's better to be one than not to be one! If you care about souls more than about being right you should be interested in leading people away from error and toward the fullness of truth, not in telling them to get lost.

Hans Küng--and let me pause for a moment to note the absurdity of being unable to spell the name of someone you want to excommunicate; how on earth are we to believe you have have the knowledge to acquire a justified opinion on topic if you can't spell his name? Fr. Küng is a priest in good standing, who has never been through an examination for excommunication let alone excommunicated, and who is, for what it's worth, also a friend and table companion of the present Pope!

Two quick items, married priests and woman priests. If one feels strongly enough then you have the choice to a faith that more closely aligns to what you believe in.

The issues you yolk together so confidently are utterly different, and on at least one of them you are simply wrong. Married priests are not forbidden by the Catholic church. Married priests were common for the first thousand years everywhere in the church--mentioned repeatedly as licit in church councils, papal writings and so forth--and continue to be common in the eastern parts of it today. The Catholic church has many thousands of them, both in Uniate churches and under the Roman rite. The validity of priestly orders to the larger body of married priests--the Orthodox church--are by no means questioned. Rather, the question is whether married priests should be made an ordinary (not extraordinary) possibility to Catholic priests of the Roman rite. The issue is one of discipline--and discipline within only one part of the Catholiic church--which can and has changed many times, not doctrine.

Incidentally, on the topic of women and holy orders, I trust you are aware that the church had female deacons. Like married priests, they died out around the turn of the second millenium. They appear in 1 Timothy. Pliny tortured a number of them during his campaign against Christianity in Bithynia-Pontus. They were mentioned in the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, the Apostolic Constitution, and on and on.

Some today insist that although the church had female deacons, the were not fully "sacramental." Unfortunately, the textual evidene is simply against this view--the rites to ordain them, for example, are parallel. The matter of restoring the female diaconate been actively discussed in both theological circles and curial commissions since Vatican II.

Lastly, lest you imagine the church can't resurrect such an ancient practice, look to your own position. The permanent diaconate--the diaconate as a freestanding order of married men, not as a stepping stone to the priesthood--was lost for centuries. The position to which you are about to mount is the fruit of radical return to ancient practice. Catholic conservatives--including the SSPX (no longer schismatic thanks to Pope Benedict!)--assert that permanent deacons incurr not only excommunication, but automatic excommunication, since the married diaconate is a sacriledge.

>69 Barton:, 71

When the tent is large enough to accomadate a variety of positions, many are bound to be uncomfortable. I know I am with some of the positions of persons or groups within the Episcopal Church. The only other option is to continually fragment until you're alone. Now there's an idea! I can be a church of one as long as I can keep those multiple personalities in check....

>72 pmackey: "When the tent is large enough to accomadate a variety of positions, many are bound to be uncomfortable."

Damn, I must have gone to the wrong Episcopal churches. We had some hippie services but they were all still in the nave. I didn't realize a tent could make such a difference.

>73 drbubbles: Oh, yea. I'm sorry you've been visiting the wrong parish. Stop on by anytime and visit. I'll be the one behind the elephants with the shovel. I was told I have a gift for... uhm... fertilizer.

: )

>73 drbubbles: Actually I've been to some really good services in a tent, mainly either at Greenbelt (the UK Christian festival, not the suburb of Washington DC) or at Taize, France.

Yup, nothing wrong with a tent. I used to go campmeeting every summer with my mom and siblings. Remember those, or is that just a U.S. thing?

71 My goodness you have put a lot of effort in responding to my message. Actually you have fleshed out what I should have said . My position is not to far from what you said. I think I should have put more though into what I said. You make my message seem facile and elementary. You have given me alot to think over. Thank you.

Sorry for the sometimes-hostile tone. As you can tell, I get passionate—and a bit irritated—by some so-called conservative positions.

Passionate discussion is a good thing. If you examine your beliefs it makes your faith stronger and more internalized. By the way I didnt take your message as hostile. What I took is that your belief is strong and this too is a good thing. Again thanks for giving me things to ponder.

"Theosophy?" What am I missing here? Madame Blavatsky?

Some people regard Jacob Boehme (1575-1624) as a Protestant theosophist.

At Duke we called him a Pietist.

I would agree that Boehme as a pietist is a better description, but he did write Six Theosophic Points. So there might be something of a Christian theosophy.

This is an excellent topic, and one in which I have much interest. In the interest of full disclosure: For many reasons, whatever it means to be a Christian, if I ever was one before, I'm decidedly not one now. (I spent a lot of time, from childhood into adulthood, trying to become one, with no good results.)

I haven't been able to read all 88 messages that precede mine; I hope I don't repeat or fail to credit anyone who has already posted something here. I'll try to go back and try to read all the previous posts.)

As a first contribution to this thread, I'll offer the following considerations regarding the question. First, it strongly seems to me that, from its inception to now, it has been very unclear what Christianity is. As just one indication of this fact, Paul--our earliest Christian writer--already condemns with some asperity several ideas on the subject that differ from his own.

I'll submit this fact also: Christianity is exclusive. One cannot at the same time be a Christian and an adherent of any other religious doctrine; much evidence for this comes to mind, which I'll cite on request. I look forward to further discussion of this topic.

"The veneration of Mary strikes me as attested very early. . . ."

Where is such attestation? (This is not a challenge, but a straightforward question: I just want to know.) I've wondered about this, but never have taken the trouble to do the research.

Sorry: another question on #52:

"Papal infallibility is nor "oracular" in nature"

What exactly do you mean by this?

>85 criels: I can at least offer Wikipedia's suggestion that the Marian title "theotokos" (God-bearer), much argument about which was notionally settled in the early 5th century, was in use by the mid third century. The legends of her perpetual virginity (Protoevangelium of James), and even her own virgin birth (Tertullian), go back to the 2nd century, as does the attempt to give her a theological role in salvation history (Irenaeus).

It's perhaps significant that it was in Ephesus that the council defined this title as orthodox. My suspicion that this city, centre of a major cult of Diana as recorded in the NT, and reputed burial place of the Virgin Mary, was the locus of one of those great "baptisms" by which Christianity absorbed the traditions of its predecessors, transforming the pagan Diana cult into an acceptable cult of a Christian female figure. Thus also did Sol Invictus become Christmas, and Brigid of Ireland a saint.

I presume that if proclamations by the pope are not oracular in nature, it means they aren't enigmatic or puzzling. Rather they are statements that the church has had some experience with and are satisfued with, before they are proclaimed with the determination of infallibility.

The veneration of Mary strikes me as attested very early

Here lie dragons. The development of Marian theology and her cult are big topics, and not ones that--frankly--I go in for. Catholics argue the significant up and the dates back. Protestants do the opposite. However, it's clear that by the 2c. she was on the rise, with the non-canonical "Protevangelium of James" being written to pump her up, with Irenaeus developing a theology of Mary as a counterpart to Eve, and being called "Theotokos" (Mother of God), for example by Origin. By the 3c at the latest prayers were being written to her, etc. From then till now it's been an almost unbroken upward swing.

"Papal infallibility is nor "oracular" in nature"

Basically the Pope tends to say "the church believes X" and then supports it with evidence from scripture, the fathers, etc., not personal revelation or his mere ipse dixit. He tends to affirm long-established tradition and chooses sides--generally the bigger side, at least from Rome--when there are disagreements, rather than coming up with entirely new ideas for which divine inspiration is claimed. So, for example, the two modern examples of ex cathedra papal infallibility are the 1854 and 1950 pronouncements of the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary. In both cases, while the opinon of the tradition was not exactly unanimous, neither were controversial at the time, let alone picked out of thin air. Pope Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus, which declared the latter, has 48 footnotes!

An "oracular" infallibility would be something like what the musical Book of Mormon nicely summarizes as:

"And I believe that in 1978 God changed his mind about BLACK PEOPLE!"

The line refers to the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood, by which the leaders of the Mormon church opened Mormon priesthood--held by most adult mormons--to all races. As the Wikipedia article describes, this decision was described as the result of a literal shared, divine visitation which participants compared to the Pentecost.

Thanks, Tim; very helpful.

> 84. One cannot at the same time be a Christian and an adherent of any other religious doctrine; much evidence for this comes to mind, which I'll cite on request.

I'd like to make that request. Please share.

As for me, I go along with Thomas Merton who stated his intention, as a Trappist monk, “to become as good a Buddhist as I can”.

#87: My suspicion that this city, centre of a major cult of Diana as recorded in the NT, and reputed burial place of the Virgin Mary, was the locus of one of those great "baptisms" by which Christianity absorbed the traditions of its predecessors, transforming the pagan Diana cult into an acceptable cult of a Christian female figure.

Excellent point: I had never made this connection. Thanks.

#91

I hope that my evidence won't be scorned for the mere fact that it is biblical. Surely the books of our New Testament reflect doctrines that were current among many Christians at the respective times of their composition. Most importantly, the doctrines of these books are the ones that became "orthodox" and, in the case of Paul's epistles at least--the earliest Christian writings we have--they had been circulated widely and used in early churches long before they became "orthodox." Of course, there were other, competing doctrines that their adherents considered to be "Christian;" but these doctrines were rejected by church leaders and died out, whereas those of our current NT became accepted as authoritative. The same applies to the other NT books. I think that these considerations are sufficient to justify me in calling the NT as a whole authentically, importantly "Christian."

I have presented all this argument about the authoritative status of the NT because I constantly see statements, mainly made by Roman Catholics, that suggest that "tradition" renders the Bible almost wholly irrelevant as a source of Christian doctrine. (I would come close to saying that the Bible is thus treated by such persons as a kind of decorative accessory to Christianity.) At worst, persons who believe in the primacy--or at least the parity--of the Bible as a source of Christian doctrine are by some summarily disparaged as "fundamentalists" or something similar. (Persons who hold--or seem to me to hold--this dismissive attitude do not usually declare explicitly that the Bible is of little importance, but it strongly seems to me that, in discussion of matters of doctrine, they quickly demonstrate little seriousness about the Bible, and strongly prefer to appeal to tradition as truly--and apparently exclusively--authoritative. So much having been said for the Bible, I surmise that in later church writings there are other claims for the exclusiveness of Christianity: but of these I can say little or nothing; I admit that I do not know the potentially relevant writings.

I need to send this prefatory material for your consideration now, and then concentrate on answering your actual question about Christian exclusiveness. I'll be back with my reply.

Thank you for considering all this: if you find factual errors in what I've said here, I'd appreciate the corrections.

>92 criels:

Meh. It makes for a nice story, but the development here isn't shrouded in forgiving mists of time—forgiving for speculation. We have some idea how the development here went.

I constantly see statements, mainly made by Roman Catholics, that suggest that "tradition" renders the Bible almost wholly irrelevant as a source of Christian doctrine

I can't vouch for what you've heard, but this is quite the opposite of Catholic belief. It is rather a fever-dream of Protestants about Catholic belief. From a certain fundamentalist perspective it may seem to be true, just as a man who's chosen to live in a dark cave may come to believe everyone else hates green grass and trees, but it's just not a very accurate or useful way to understand what Catholics in fact believe. Further, since this sort of fundamentalist Protestantism is only a few hundred years old, it's not the sort of theory anyone who regards the full span of Christian history is inclined to respect.

#92

but this is quite the opposite of Catholic belief. / but it's just not a very accurate or useful way to understand what Catholics in fact believe.

The Catholic approach to the Bible is something I need to learn about and understand. Are there any specific church doctrines that clearly describe, for the obtuse, the proper role of the Bible within Catholic thought and/or practice? If so, I'd be grateful to know.

The last big official document was Dei verbum, one of the key texts of Vatican II, the last ecumenical council.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_...

While "conservative" in various ways, Dei Verbum was something of a coup for progressives. The first draft was extremely conservative, and was rejected by the fathers. The pope intervened to pull it and come up with its current form, which was almost unanimously accepted. Together with a 1943 encyclical it unfroze Catholic biblical scholarship, largely shut down in the 19th century.

>93 criels: "tradition" renders the Bible almost wholly irrelevant as a source of Christian doctrine

I agree with Tim that this is not an accurate reflection of Catholic doctrine. Tradition and scripture does not mean tradition instead of scripture.

It's also worth noting that the canon of scripture, as you say yourself, was determined by the Church, ie it is part of the tradition. The Church did not simply accept everything that was written, it chose which bits it considered orthodox.

persons who believe in the primacy--or at least the parity--of the Bible as a source of Christian doctrine are by some summarily disparaged as "fundamentalists"

I don't think people who hold to the primacy of scripture are necessarily labelled fundamentalists. It's more to do with how one interprets scripture. One can believe in the primacy of scripture but still interpret it using the tools of biblical exegesis. Or one can accept the bible as being literally true, in which case one could perhaps be described as literalist and/or fundamentalist.

#97

#It's also worth noting that the canon of scripture, as you say yourself, was determined by the Church, ie it is part of the tradition."

Yes, I was actually well aware of this argument: I'd read a book (years ago) called Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (and wrote a review of it on this site, which I think will be gone now because I removed the book from my library: both virtually and physically.)

#98: clarification:

I didn't mean that the argument itself was untenable; I meant that the book itself was astonishingly poor at explaining things.

#91

I haven't forgotten; I'm looking for and at various sources rather than just throwing up a couple of passages that are very well known and that at least seem to support my claim. I'd like to do better than that.

> 100. I appreciate your effort. I can certainly wait.

#97:

I said: persons who believe in the primacy--or at least the parity--of the Bible as a source of Christian doctrine are by some summarily disparaged as "fundamentalists." (By the way, how are you guys putting quotations in bold text? I can't find any way to do it.)

You said in response #97:

I don't think people who hold to the primacy of scripture are necessarily labelled fundamentalists. It's more to do with how one interprets scripture. One can believe in the primacy of scripture but still interpret it using the tools of biblical exegesis. Or one can accept the bible as being literally true, in which case one could perhaps be described as literalist and/or fundamentalist.

In fact they are often labelled that in informal discussions (including some of those on LT.) And persons who so label them often do not bother to find out the specifics of how they understand the Bible. That's all I meant; I wasn't referring to dialogue among theologians or other doctrinal experts.

Tradition and scripture does not mean tradition instead of scripture.

Nor do is it really an "and." Tradition is to a large extent about explaining scripture. Catholics have a "tradition" that comes down on one side or another on various biblical questions--is Jesus divine? does Peter's singling-out have implications for the church after Peter died? etc. Men of good will have decided these questions in other ways. But in doing so they aren't doing anything more than the church did.

If there's an added element it's the notion that the church can settle some questions, and not having keep arguing over them again and again. From a Catholic perspective the Protestant Reformation and the continual splintering of Protestant churches over interpretations since then has involved a serial re-arguing of what had been settled questions for a millennium or more.

It's also worth noting that the canon of scripture, as you say yourself, was determined by the Church, ie it is part of the tradition.

Right. Protestants are in the weird position of accepting a canon of scripture that was decided in the fourth century--and later--at which time the church had veneration of Mary, saints, bishops, priests, formal liturgies, infallible councils, etc. Characters like Bob Jones thump Bibles that were assembled by people that, if were to meet them, he would surely consider heretics.

Characters like Bob Jones thump Bibles that were assembled by people that, if were to meet them, he would surely consider heretics.

No disputing that. In fact, it seems to me that if the Bible were seriously taken by those who declare that they live by it all, they would behave radically differently than they do, and the result would be appalling to themselves as much as to everyone else.

(104) criels:

Isn't it a good thing, then, that God can use even "heretics" (your choice of word), such as the Anglicans and Congregationalists (for example, those used to create the King James Bible in 1611) to make His word available to all?

History is full of examples of how God has used many flawed people to let others know about Him.

I'm one of those so-called Bible "literalists", but I don't thump people over the head with my Bible. You can choose to believe it or not, that's the beauty of freewill.

Oh, and to answer the original question posed by this thread, I'm a Bible-believer. :)

How do I put text in bold type on here? Without it, it's hard for the reader to distinguish quotations from others from my own responses.

do this.



but put then before what you want to bold. To turn it off, which you HAVE to do"



to put it another way,

and

without the spaces.

Use an i instead of a b and you get italics.

Hmmmm it ate up my explanation.

"" without the quotes.

Ok, why did the post eat up the greater than and less than signs?

For help in formatting messages: http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/HelpThing:Html_tips

#96

Thanks for the reference to Dei Verbum. I've read it carefully.

>111 criels:

What did you think?

"I ask not only on behalf of these whom I have sent into the world, as you have sent me into the world, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Divine Parent, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

So prays Jesus in the Gospel According to St. John (17:20-23). For Anglicans, the unity of the Church--our prayer "that we all may be one"--does not in any way negate the beauty of the diversity to be found within Chrisitianity; rather "this Church does not seek to absorb other Communions, but rather, co-operating with them on the basis of a common Faith and Order, to discountenance schism, to heal the wounds of the Body of Christ, and to promote the charity which is the chief of Christian graces and the visibile manifestation of Christ to the world" (resolution of the House of Bishops, meeting in Chicago in 1886). And yet it is so easy to, often without realizing it, re-draw the lines which fracture the Church's essential unity. I was reminded of this recently when reading The Death of America's God by Stanley Hauerwas. He writes:

The great irony is that the almost pathological fervency with which the religious right in America tries to sustain faith as a necessary condition for democracy is the surest formula for insuring that the faith that is sustained is not the Christian faith.

The thing is, there is no such thing as "the Christian faith," solitary and unified. This is, I think, somewhat related to the Protestant heresy of the "perspicuity of the Scriptures," which implies that the Bible has one true meaning and that any seeming deviations from it (whatever it might be) are in fact distortions, and of course all those "nondenominational" Christians who claim that theirs is just plain Christianity and all the denominations distortions. But in truth there is no undistorted Christian message, because there are no undistorted Christians: we are all limited in our understanding. What there are is Christian faiths, plural, as diverse communities try to discern the will of God, the sense of the Scriptures, and the movement of the Spirit, and come to different conclusions. Some of these conclusions are better than others, and I think Anglicanism's (and post/liberal Anglo-Catholicism's in particular) conclusions are the best of the set; I'm no relativist. But what none of us gets to say is that any of these faiths, from Christadelphian to Calvinist, Unitarian to Episcopalian, Latter-Day Saint to Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witness to Christian Scientist, falls short of being authentically Christian even in their error, that we're not all (or at least most of us, and who is and who isn't isn't up for us to decide) following Jesus as Lord in our own way and as best as we are able.

It is impossible to avoid the fact that American Christianity is far less than it should have been just to the extent that the church has failed to make clear that America's god is not the God that Christians worship.

Now, the only way I can see of reading that sentence is as saying that American Christians aren't "real" Christians (or else they'd worship the God that "real" Christians worship and not America's god), and I feel it's deeply problematic to try to throw ANY of our siblings-in-Christ out of the Body like that, no matter who they are or what they believe.

Now, of course Hauerwas isn't advocating violence or even intolerance towards those he has considered "really" non-Christian. But still, I know the pain of being told one isn't really Christian because of what one does or doesn't believe, and I can't accept that as an appropriate or loving response to anyone. It's absolutely possible to respond with loving correction to those whom one believes to have fallen into theological or practical error without having to deny such a deep and integral part of a person's self-identity.

>113 cjbanning:, wow and amen.

#112

Before I can answer, I need to decide what approach I should take in assessing the document. 1) Should I only consider whether it clearly and coherently describes, in a way that a non-Catholic inquirer can understand, the principles and practice of biblical interpretation espoused by the Catholic Church. This approach would, of course, omit my criticisms of doctrines that the pope assumes: e.g., the divine process whereby the Bible has been transmitted, authority derived from apostolic succession, etc. Or 2) should I include my assessment (not favorable) of the credibility of the claims of divine nature and processes which the pope assumes?Would you prefer 1), 2), or both?

I'm working assiduously on this, and not coming up with much that directly and decisively confirms my point. But, in the interest of posting something, I offer the following, which I take to have some value in supporting my claim:

1 John 5: 19-21:

"We know that we are God’s children, and that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols."

There's definitely something exclusivist about this passage: God's children (right, know truth, have understanding) vs. whole world (of the devil, espouse falsehoods). This seems to exclude any simultaneous participation in both God's true religion and any other existing religion of the diverse, vast, Greco-Roman world (which, for the writer, are all worship of idols: i.e., the many gods of Greco-Roman religion). This is connected with something that we know about Christians from Roman sources: they refused to participate in the rites demanded by the Roman state religion, which was an indispensable sign of loyalty to the Roman empire (and thus they were considered pernicious to the well-being of the state). So far as I know, Christians and Jews were the only religious groups that had any qualms about participating in the public religion as well as their own personal religion. By contrast, to all the diverse peoples of the Roman empire, the two were absolutely compatible, and it never occurred to them that there might be a conflict between them. But to Christians, it was a stark, uncompromising us/them, either/or proposition.

Here's a text similar in spirit and import:

2 John 1:8:

"Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person."

It seem clear from this passage that "abiding in the teaching of Christ (i.e., espouses Christianity)" excludes "going beyond it (I take this to include accepting tenets of other religions). Anyone who tries to combine the two "does not have god." Furthermore, no teacher who "does not bring this teaching"-- i.e., Christian teaching--should be permitted to "come to you". This is clearly exclusivist.

> 116. Thank you for your message, but I fail to see how the two verses you quote make a case for the exclusivity of Christianity.

1 John 5: 19-21: -- Jesus' coming to give us understanding of "him who is true" doesn't really say anything about other religions. It seems entirely possible that there might be alternate pathways to the same truth. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. John 14:2.

Keeping yourself from idols seems be a very specific admonition relating to graven images, etc. Perhaps this did have reference to certain Roman practices, but, in context, it could also be taken to mean simply that one should focus on spiritual truths and not get hung up on worldly paraphernalia, like icons or relics.

2 John 1:8 -- Is the "teaching of Christ" the various sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels? If so, a number of other religions and belief systems are in complete agreement with Christ's message of love, forgiveness, charity, etc. Unfortunately, Christendom itself has "gone beyond" the teaching of Christ -- way beyond.

>116 criels:

Certainly the Holy Spirit brings understanding to God's children. But I think there's a great deal of reason to believe that this understanding consists not of facts but of something fuller, deeper, richer, more akin to wha Quakers call the light of God in everyone.

And certainly there is a need to worry about committing idolatry. But as I try to argue in my blog post The Idolatry of Small-God-Ism, there are many types of idolatry, and the worst is when we put our limited understanding of God before God Godself, and assume that God can't move and speak in other ways than those with which we are familiar. Then we're worshipping the idol of our own belief rather than the Almighty who moves in mysterious ways beyond human comprehension.

And absolutely certainly Christians are called to refrain from cooperating too much with oppressive systems of power, as was the case in Roman civil religion, and indeed is the case in today's ostensibly Christian (or deist) civil religion in many first-world countries. You can be sure that I don't say "under God" when I recite the U.S. pledge of allegiance.

"It seem clear from this passage that 'abiding in the teaching of Christ (i.e., espouses Christianity)' excludes 'going beyond it (I take this to include accepting tenets of other religions).'"

Except that Christ is Risen and alive, and while the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition contain all that is necessary for salvation, that does not mean they contain all that it is possible for Christ to teach. For Christ also teaches us through our experience and our reason. I don't think "abiding in the teaching of Christ" primarily or fundamentally means following some set of rules, except insofar as those rules are able to act as a guide in encouraging Christlike behavior and love.

>118 cjbanning:, You can be sure that I don't say "under God" when I recite the U.S. pledge of allegiance.

This is a tangent, but what you said is interesting. I don't have a problem saying the "under God" because I see the phrase as representing the God above all gods that we have. Something like the universal God that transcends individual religions. That said, I would prefer to have the "under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance because it is a late addition and violates the separation of church and state. It is grossly unfair to atheists. It's the same with the "In God we trust" on our currency... though I'm a little more ambivalent because of the long usage the phrase has in U.S. history. If a vote was taken I would likely support removing it as a tacit government endorsement of religion.

I think where I draw the line is in documents like the "Declaration of Independence". We can't go back and edit out the references to God.

I have a problem with the phrase "under God" because it is an unconscionable slander against the deity to associate divinity with this nation's history of genocide, enslavement, state-sanctioned murder, imperialism, avarice and other assorted infamies.

#118 and #119:

"1 John 5: 19-21: -- Jesus' coming to give us understanding of "him who is true" doesn't really say anything about other religions. It seems entirely possible that there might be alternate pathways to the same truth. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. John 14:2."

"Keeping yourself from idols seems be a very specific admonition relating to graven images, etc. Perhaps this did have reference to certain Roman practices, but, in context, it could also be taken to mean simply that one should focus on spiritual truths and not get hung up on worldly paraphernalia, like icons or relics."

I disagree. It does say a lot about other religions, as I indicated in my original message. "Idols" is not a specific term at all: it means pretty much all the gods of all "pagan" religions, which used images to represent whatever gods they worshipped. The commentary in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, which is the English version of the Bible that I use, says: "In a general sense, 'Keep yourselves from idols' probably refers to the false gods of their non-Christian neighbors."

A similar passage, 1Corinthians 10:14 ff., makes much the same point, perhaps more clearly:

"Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?"

Again, the NOAB comments: "Paul moves the focus from abstract principles of knowledge to concrete social practices--sacrificing and eating in temple banquets--and formulates his final prohibition in v. 21 in terms of the *mutual exclusivity of solidarity with the Lord and solidarity with demons (gods/idols)."* All this seals my original point about Christian exclusivity.

And it certainly precludes this:

"It seems entirely possible that there might be alternate pathways to the same truth. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. John 14:2

The reference to Jesus' talking about many mansions is of no point to the argument. I could just as well cite all the places where Jesus says things along the lines of "‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it." And the seldom cited and little known story, which occurs in all three synoptic gospels, about Jesus' deliberately hiding his message through parables, but then explaining clearly in private to his disciples, i.e. Mark 4:10-12:

"When (Jesus) was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that
“they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven. . . .
He did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples."

Oops.

"But I think there's a great deal of reason to believe that this understanding consists not of facts but of something fuller, deeper, richer, more akin to wha Quakers call the light of God in everyone."

I don't think that anything I said about the text precludes this interpretation of "understanding."

I earnestly hope you won't be too offended by the following: I'm afraid that your interpretations represent a determination not to accept any evidence that Christianity is exclusive, no matter how much the text might suggest that it is.

> 121. I, too, hope that you won't take offense if I point out that an insistence on Christian exclusivity has been the theological underpinning of historical atrocities perpetrated by Christian imperialists the world over, including, of course, the sustained and murderous (and successful) assault on the native peoples of the American continents.

I would like to interject something into this discussion:

"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13 (mammon=money)

We cannot serve two different gods, whether a the second is a 'religious' god or something else that we treasure above God (like idols of money, television). I can see that it's not possible to truly be a Christian and also be a Muslim or Buddhist etc.

We have to make a decision, to choose who we will serve. "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

(122) I, too, hope that you won't take offense if I point out that an insistence on Christian exclusivity has been the theological underpinning of historical atrocities perpetrated by Christian imperialists the world over, including, of course, the sustained and murderous (and successful) assault on the native peoples of the American continents.

It's not the insistence of Christian exclusivity that has committed the atrocities, it's men who don't follow the teachings of God.

The Pharisees plotted to have Jesus Christ killed. Does that make Jehovah, the God of the Jewish religion, the reason for their actions? No, the Pharisees broke their own laws in order to have Jesus condemned.

The Inquisition tortured and killed thousands of people in the name of 'God', does that make God responsible for their savagery? No, those people twisted the Scriptures and used the result to justify their actions.

We can point to any man-made religious organization and see atrocities done "in the name of God", but the blame should be on those who wrest and twist God's word to suit their own purposes and desires.

In other words, blame sinful men, not the faith or the focus of the faith in God.

FWIW, Jesus Christ preached that no one could come to God the Father (in Heaven) without going through Him, Jesus Christ. So, Jesus taught exclusivity.

No offense intended, of course. :)

> 124. FWIW, Jesus Christ preached that no one could come to God the Father (in Heaven) without going through Him, Jesus Christ. So, Jesus taught exclusivity.

Presumably, Jesus spoke these words (John 14:6) before there was anything like a Christian church of any sort, other than a handful (better yet, a baker’s dozen) of disciples and other individuals who welcomed him into their houses. No creeds, no doctrines, no rites, no indulgences, no catechisms (or cataclysms), nor any of the other detritus of Christendom.

So what did Jesus mean about “going through him”? It seems very unlikely that he meant behaving in accordance with any dogmas not yet articulated or even conceived by men.

I believe he tries to make it perfectly clear when he follows up 14:6 with 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.” (NASB)

He’s talking about a state of being, a special ontological category involving the fusion of individual personality into the divine essence.

And into this state of being, Jesus invites other people: “On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” (John 14:30, NIV)

Is this essentially the same thing as when the Hindu Sri T. V. Venkataraman declared that Saint Manikkavasakar's spiritual attainment was so fulfilling that he became immersed in total oneness with the Lord, and the Tiruvachagam is a faithful record of the stages by which this was made possible through the sheer grace of the Lord? I, for one, would not want to gainsay that.

121. "I, too, hope that you won't take offense if I point out that an insistence on Christian exclusivity has been the theological underpinning of historical atrocities perpetrated by Christian imperialists the world over, including, of course, the sustained and murderous (and successful) assault on the native peoples of the American continents."

I entirely agree: in fact I often point it out. It's one of my many objections to Christianity. But how does it undermine my point? Is it that since exclusivity has caused atrocities, the Bible could not have espoused exclusivity? That just reinforces my point about not taking seriously texts that are offensive to you. That's a strange interpretive principle. It's quite likely that an ancient text that is so far removed in time, place, and culture from our own will contain things we hate. Nevertheless, we can't tell the Bible what to say on grounds that what it says offends us. What we're concerned with is what the Bible actually says, and coming to terms with it; and I've given powerful reasons for thinking that it preaches exclusiveness. it is a mistake to think that the Bible can't say something terrible. As another example that it does in places preach terrible doctrines: Paul in several places--in no uncertain terms--enjoins slaves to obey their masters and not cause any fuss about it. That Biblical injunction was the primary biblical underpinning of slavery in the Old South. But the text still tells slaves to obey their masters submissively and quietly, and not to resist their lot. That does not mean that the Bible couldn't have preached that moral principle: obviously it does. It also teaches Hell, which I find the single most horrible thing a god could create. The idea of torture, apparently in some places eternal torture, kind of bugs me. I don't think it's right. But I don't pretend it's not in the biblical texts.

I don't assume that the Bible's text cannot contain horrible things as a result of the fact that I, or all of us, hate them. But many Christians do. The text is still there, and if Christian interpreters are honest, they will admit it is there and try to come to terms with that fact. You can't read the biblical injunctions to Christian exclusivity out of the Bible because it's offensive to our post-Enlightenment moral sentiments.

Obviously, all this upsets and angers people because they are brought up to regard the Bible as the divine, perfect, and without moral outrages. I have no wish in what I write--I wish that I could avoid it--to upset people about something they find so dear and sensitive. But if I am to discuss Christianity honestly, I've found that it's impossible to avoid causing such upset.

Notice that your last post does not address my last post about exclusivity. It just appeals to the dire results that follow if my argument is true (as in fact it is).

#124

It's not the insistence of Christian exclusivity that has committed the atrocities, it's men who don't follow the teachings of God. The Pharisees plotted to have Jesus Christ killed. Does that make Jehovah, the God of the Jewish religion, the reason for their actions?"

But Jehovah does repeatedly order the Israelites to exterminate whole nations, and leave nothing alive that breathes. Since God ordered these enormities, I think it's fair to hold him responsible for them. Therefore, the Israelites certainly were not " twist(ing) God's word to suit their own purposes and desires." They were following his direct orders, which he did not make optional.

By the way, what does FWIW mean?

> 126-8. To be honest, lifting isolated verses from the Bible (OT and/or NT) in order to adduce evidence for a particular point of view, as we've both been doing, is a pretty fruitless exercise. For every "moral outrage" that can be found there's a mild-mannered feel-good passage that contradicts it. This always makes me think of Jacques Ellul, who, in his book the Subversion of Christianity, made the point that the contradictions to be found in the Bible that critics are so quick to identify and condemn are the essence of revelation. But I'll let Ellul speak for himself: "We have to realize that everything in the Bible is contradictory. Yet there is revelation only as the contradictions are held together. God the Wholly Other is incarnate in a man. He is still the Wholly Other. And we have to understand -- I repeat this because it is essential -- that the truth is made up of the actual contradictions. Each aspect of the truth is true only because it is linked to its radical opposite."

FWIW -- Free Willy Instantly, Will'ya?

Actually, "for what it's worth".

>125 jburlinson:

Actually, my reading is, I think, even more straightforward; Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection (whether we are to understand them as representing literal historical events or spiritual realities) are universally salvific; it is Christ giving Christself up for the world that allows all--Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim--to (have the opportunity to) go through Christ to the Divine Parent.

126: "What we're concerned with is what the Bible actually says"

The Bible doesn't "actually say" anything; it's squiggly lines on a piece of paper. Like any text, it needs to be interpreted by an interpretative community. For twenty-first Christians, we do so through the lenses of tradition, reason, and experience--and, of course, guided by the Spirit. But there's no single, plain/clear/perspicuous meaning that's self-evident to everybody without need of appeal to tradition, reason, or experience. Texts don't work that way.

> 130 (a). I'll go along with you there.

#129

126-8. To be honest, lifting isolated verses from the Bible (OT and/or NT) in order to adduce evidence for a particular point of view, as we've both been doing, is a pretty fruitless exercise.

I haven't been taking isolated passages from the Bible to make my point (at least, I tried not to do so). I try hard to see that verses I cite are consistent with the overall surrounding material. I think I was successful in this. To ascertain this, it would be necessary to go back and check the context of each verse/passage I've cited: I don't think that anything in any of the biblical texts I've cited is beside the author's point or inconsistent with the context. I entirely agree that biblical citation is often full of errors and tendentious misrepresentations of the texts. It's a matter of how carefully and well one selects passages that indicate one's point. We have to cite biblical verses/passages in order to discuss the Bible, of course, as is the case with any other text, whether secular or religious.

For every "moral outrage" that can be found there's a mild-mannered feel-good passage that contradicts it.

You are absolutely correct. That shows that the Bible is utterly confusing, unclear, and full of contradictions about the most important matters. But I don't think that fact justifies us in choosing to accept the "feel-good" texts and ignoring or denying the import of the horrible ones. All this, too, is a reason why I can't be a Christian: it's virtually--or totally--impossible to know what to do or believe if one is to be a Christian. One can't do or believe things that are contradictory to each other. This is an extremely important matter, since the stakes of getting it right may be the difference between eternal bliss and (potentially, depending on the uncertain interpretation of the relevant texts regarding damnation to Hell) eternal torture. As I also said in my original post, what it means to be a Christian is terribly unclear. And, obviously, God could and should have simply told us his message in a clear way to begin with. The fact that the Bible and Christianity are so confusing and contradictory shows that human beings--confused ones--wrote and developed the Bible that we have, which is largely a product of historical accident. If God wanted us to know his ways and his orders, he would have made them clear if he were a good God. If the Christian god existed, then, so far from being worthy of our love and worship, he would merit our hatred beyond anything or anyone else in the universe.

132: "All this, too, is a reason why I can't be a Christian: it's virtually--or totally--impossible to know what to do or believe if one is to be a Christian."

Is it impossible to know what to do or believe if one is to be an atheist? Any epistemic tools accessible to an atheist should also be accesible to the Christian, alongside scripture and tradition.

#130

"The Bible doesn't "actually say" anything; it's squiggly lines on a piece of paper. Like any text, it needs to be interpreted by an interpretative community. For twenty-first Christians, we do so through the lenses of tradition, reason, and experience--and, of course, guided by the Spirit. But there's no single, plain/clear/perspicuous meaning that's self-evident to everybody without need of appeal to tradition, reason, or experience. Texts don't work that way."

The Bible, like any other text, is designed to communicate meaning. And, as I have said, it sometimes communicates meanings we hate. The interpretations I've offered are confirmed by independent works of serious biblical scholarship. Some passages straightforwardly "mean" what they seem to mean. They can't be "interpreted" away: that's evading the problem by subterfuge. You simply are advocating interpreting away things that offend you. I do, by the way, have a good sense of how texts work: perhaps an above average one. Here's an example of "interpretation" that astounds me: Krister Stendahl, an esteemed Harvard theologian, said that the NT texts exhibiting anti-Semitism have to be "re-interpreted" because they have hurt people as they stand. He added that the anti-Semitic biblical texts can't really indicate anti-Semitism in the NT because the the overall kind spirit of Jesus (or something to that effect) exhibited elsewhere in the NT is inconsistent with it. Is this an interpretive procedure that you would endorse? I think it is the product of sheer desperation to evade offensive material contained in the NT. Stendahl was actually admitting that anti-Semitism exists in NT texts, but it can't be allowed to be there anymore: although the anti-Semitism is there, it has to be "re-interpreted" so that it isn't. I find this shockingly absurd. Similarly, I have found to a striking degree that Christians in general almost invariably appeal to the necessity of biblical "interpretation" when they encounter texts whose import they dislike. Here is a slightly--but only slightly--more honest approach, taken by W. Robertson Nichols in his commentary on the NT in Greek. The text in question is Mark 13:10-17:

"Then the disciples came and asked him, ‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’ He answered, ‘To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The reason I speak to them in parables is that “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.” With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says:
“You will indeed listen, but never understand,
and you will indeed look, but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes;
so that they might not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and understand with their heart and turn—
and I would heal them.”
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it."

Nichols simply insists that Jesus could not possibly have deliberately hidden his message so that people would not understand it and be saved, despite the text that "seems" to mean that he does. He suggests that if the evangelists wrote this, he would have to conclude that they misunderstood Jesus' meaning. (This seems unlikely to be the case, since each of the synoptic gospels repeats this story, sometimes in an even more cruel version.) There would be "no alternative" but to say that it is better to "impute a mistake in (the evangelists) rather than an inhuman purpose to Christ." Nichols is deeply disturbed by this quotation of Jesus, and he refuses to believe that Jesus could have said such a thing; but, to his credit, he does not try to interpret the passage so that it didn't mean what it appears to mean. It was there, and horrible to face, but he didn't deny what the passage meant as it stood in the text, or offer a different interpretation.


Also, I disbelieve, for many reasons, in the existence and operations of the Holy Spirit, which your approach to interpretation assumes.

#133

"Is it impossible to know what to do or believe if one is to be an atheist?"

Atheism is simply not believing that there is a god. This conclusion does imply some things about what to do, or at least what not to do; e.g., it tells us that we have to live in this sometimes terrible world without help from an imaginary being arranging things for us. This is, in my view, salutary.

But the main answer to your question is that atheism does not claim to be a divine, infallible guide to everything in life. But Christianity does make that claim, and it is the burden of the Christian to figure out what to do in life according to Christian principles (whatever those are). Atheism is simply a statement that God does not exist: We do not maintain that all we need to know about morality and the world follows from the fact that God does not exist. Ethics has to be worked out independently of that mere single fact. And atheism does free us from the supposed obligation to do the impossible will of a cruel, capricious, non-existent God. This clarifies ethics: we can--and must--figure out how to live with the world's problems and with each other by responding to the world for what we can clearly perceive--from actual experience-- that it is.

#136

"Actually, my reading is, I think, even more straightforward; Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection (whether we are to understand them as representing literal historical events or spiritual realities) are universally salvific; it is Christ giving Christself up for the world that allows all--Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim--to (have the opportunity to) go through Christ to the Divine Parent."

This is straightforward? Hardly.

> 134. If Jesus didn't want "them" to understand, why would he speak to them at all, even in parables? Of course, the parables are intended as aids to comprehension and they have been remarkably successful for 2,000 years. The particular parable in question is that of the sower, and it's not particularly difficult to grasp its meaning, even though the disciples, as is often the case in Mark, seem to be stumped. Others of the parables are some of the best known tales of all time: the prodigal son, the good Samaritan. All Jesus is saying in the verses you quote (and in the parable itself) is that some people don't (or won't) understand, no matter how evident the truth might be. These people see, but don't perceive. They hear, but they don't listen. That's not a judgment against them, it's just a simple observation, as true at the time of Isaiah as it is in 2011. As a person who has spent a career in public health, I'm here to tell you how hard it is to convince some folks that having unprotected sex with strangers, smoking cigarettes and eating fried butter are not particularly good for them.

"If Jesus didn't want "them" to understand, why would he speak to them at all, even in parables? Of course, the parables are intended as aids to comprehension and they have been remarkably successful for 2,000 years."

It isn't up to me to say why he didn't want them to understand, or why he did the opposite in other places; to me, it's just another instance of the Bible's irrationality and the Bible's being written and developed by confused human beings. I can't say why he did a lot of things he is reported to have done. But it might be important for Christian readers to make sense of these things: they're the ones who are claiming that it's divine and meaningful. I'm just reporting the fact that this account is in the text. I recommend that you look at how the story is presented in the other synoptics; the contexts just reinforce my point. Note also that the Luke and Mark versions merely say that Jesus was fulfilling the OT prophecy by hiding his meaning from the crowds that have come to listen to him. No other excuse--not even the sorry one that they have closed their eyes, etc.-- than that the prophecy has to be fulfilled. And since you mentioned the parable of the sower and the seed: the Luke version (8:4-15) about Jesus' hiding his meaning is immediately preceded by its version of the sower and the seed! And after his repeating that he was hiding his meaning, he explains the parable of the sower and the seed to his disciples, because, for whatever reasons (they aren't indicated), he happens to favor them. Also see the Mark version that I quoted in 121.

The bible is not a document that exists in a vacuum, that has just been discovered and can be interpreted independently of Christianity (or Judaism). It is a whole library of different genres of literature written over a very long period of time by different authors for different reasons and different audiences. It was written by and belongs to a faith community, and is interpreted by them, using "the lenses of tradition, reason, and experience... guided by the Spirit" (as cj says in >130 cjbanning:). Like most religious literature, it is an ongoing attempt by humans to understand the Divine, which is rather greater than we can fully understand. Thus it represents a developing understanding which is heavily influenced by society and culture of the time of writing. So of course it contains contradictions, because humans and their societies/cultures had different understandings of the Divine in different times and places. Biblical exegesis, guided by the Spirit, helps us to discern the basic message from/about God.

Who isn't a Christian?

Well, ah, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. aren't Christians.

"Good people" without more aren't Christians. (In fact, there is some reason to believe that you don't have to be a "good person" to be a Christian.)

Believers in the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, in one form or another, aren't necessarily Christians, albeit it may be a bit difficult to be a Christian without such a belief.

Are the affirmations of the Nicene Creed a necessity? Some would say yes, and gladly kill you as a heretic if you professed to be a Christian but disagreed.

Original sin?

The inerrancy of scripture?

Holy mother Church?

The authenticity of the authority of the Priesthood based on a linear descent from the Apostles ?

The fact of the matter is that there is no one thing called "Christianity," any more than there is one thing called Judaism or Islam.

Live with it.

> 132. If God wanted us to know his ways and his orders, he would have made them clear if he were a good God.

I've often wondered what an atheist's concept of a "good God" would be. In other words, what would be the ethical/moral principles on which such a God would operate?

For example, I understand that you believe a "good God" would be very clear and transparent as to his/her commandments and/or expectations. Why should that be?

141:

"I've often wondered what an atheist's concept of a "good God" would be. In other words, what would be the ethical/moral principles on which such a God would operate?"

In the first place, it's not my responsibility, or my interest, to construct a good god: my part--which is easy--is just to know that your god is decidedly bad, not good. You're the one assuming a god; I'm not. What I know is that the Christian god is strikingly and obviously bad. How much moral sense do I--or you-- need, for example, to ascertain that a god who invented Hell for the post-mortem torture of his defenseless human creatures, knowing that he would condemn by far the greater number of them to it, is absolutely not good. But, unaccountably, you're telling me that he is not only good, but the most wonderful--indeed perfect--thing in the universe. If you believe that, we are at an inexorable moral and conceptual impasse. It would be more reasonable to claim that the creator of the Nazi death camps was good. Hell in itself is enough to rule out the notion that this is a good god; but there are far more reasons besides: all you have to do is read the Bible--preferably cover to cover, as I have done--to find a plethora of stories and sayings that display spectacularly that this god is evil, not good; you would just have to be open to accepting that if there is something in Bible that looks horrible might actually be horrible, in ways that no amount of ingenious interpretation can dismiss. I have major moral differences with anyone who is not utterly appalled by this god, and even more so with anyone who tries to defend him as good. It would make more sense to defend Hitler, whose power for evil was at least limited, unlike God's. The situation is that I know--as does anyone else with any moral sense who takes the scriptures seriously--that the putative god with whom I am presented is, if he exists, the most despicable monster that could be conceived by the sickest mind. The Bible describes a god who makes of his creatures helpless playthings for his amusement. All the biblical passages I've cited, and so many others with which the Bible is replete, provide strong reasons to deny that the Christian God is good. If that doesn't do it, nothing will.


Here is a fundamental point: Evil deeds do not become good ones as a result of the fact that it is a god, rather than a human being, who commits them. But Christians do believe in this magical difference in moral status. But the fact is that if a god is going to call himself good, then he should instantiate good, not evil. If he is to claim that he is love, then he must instantiate love rather than hate. If he is going to call himself perfectly good, then he should instantiate perfect goodness, and no evil at all. Not only does the Christian god not instantiate goodness, he is far worse than human beings. It is clear that those who think that the Christian god is the most perfect source of beneficence and goodness are denying pure common moral sense: unless they believe, of course, that god-created horrors such as Hell are morally acceptable since it's a god who creates them.

We have overwhelming reasons to disbelieve the things we are told about god and what his message and purposes are. He would be responsible, if he existed, for demanding our belief in things that are incredible, hopelessly obscure, and immutably contradictory. He would be responsible, if he existed, for giving us so many strong reasons not to believe and so few and weak reasons to believe, even if we understood what we were supposed to believe. And he would not, if he existed, hold us responsible for understanding and believing the things he has made so obscure. This would be worse than a wanton child's game; but in God's case the consequences of not succeeding at that game are ultimate and eternal. If he were good, and made salvation necessary for avoiding damnation, he would have made it clear how to acquire it. He would not deliberately obscure his message, which is necessary for salvation, so that people could be condemned to Hell, all in the interest of fulfilling some prophecy. That fact does not need to be explained further; it's obvious.

> 142. unaccountably, you're telling me that he is not only good, but the most wonderful--indeed perfect--thing in the universe.

Where or when did I tell you, or anyone else, that?

>142 criels: he would condemn by far the greater number of them to it (hell)

There have been a number of recent threads on LT where it has been argued that we have no idea how many people go to hell, and many Christians believe that hell is empty or very sparsely populated. Also the idea that nobody is condemned to hell, but those who choose not to be with God are, well, not with God.

a plethora of stories and sayings that display spectacularly that this god is evil

Or a plethora of stories and sayings that display that humans committed deeds which we now consider evil and used their limited understanding of God at that period in history to justify their deeds?

139:

"So of course it contains contradictions, because humans and their societies/cultures had different understandings of the Divine in different times and places. Biblical exegesis, guided by the Spirit, helps us to discern the basic message from/about God."

Among other problems with this, you're assuming that the Bible can't be understood unless the reader assumes that is true and divine. I disagree. The first question, for me, is whether the Bible is divine and of the Holy Spirit in the first place: and to me, it's evident that it is not.

I'll tell you the fundamental reason for our difficulty in dealing with the Bible. Except for the latest book or two, the NT is permeated with the belief that Jesus is going to return very soon, certainly before the end of the first century. Almost every NT author assumes and expresses this. It's obvious, and should be striking to anyone who doesn't presume that the Bible can't say something erroneous. The Bible makes little sense to us in the 21st century because the NT writers, and Jesus, as he is represented in the gospels, anticipated no conditions to exist later than those of the 1st century: they were certain that the return of the Lord to create a new heaven and a new earth was imminent.

143

Do you not believe it? If not just modify my statement to say that you're telling me that God is good; surely you believe that much. He clearly isn't good at all as he's presented in the Bible. And I'm denying that he's good, whether he's held to be perfectly good or not. Not good at all.

>145 criels: you're assuming that the Bible can't be understood unless the reader assumes that is true and divine

Am I?

the NT is permeated with the belief that Jesus is going to return very soon

Of course it is. That's what people believed at the time. But the Church (ie the faith community which wrote the NT and chose which books should be in it) gradually realised that wasn't the case. The bible is not a document in a vacuum, as I said earlier, it is part of the ongoing and evolving story of a faith community.

144:

142 he would condemn by far the greater number of them to it (hell)

"There have been a number of recent threads on LT where it has been argued that we have no idea how many people go to hell, and many Christians believe that hell is empty or very sparsely populated. Also the idea that nobody is condemned to hell, but those who choose not to be with God are, well, not with God."

I don't know from what their source is for those ideas, because the NT says the opposite. People can argue whatever they want; and I easily understand why they's argue that Hell is relatively innocuous. But they don't have much Biblical support for it. I'm just reporting what the Bible says. That's my support for the idea. It's hard for me to tell where they're getting their idea about Hell's not being so bad. Just saying it doesn't change the fact.

a plethora of stories and sayings that display spectacularly that this god is evil

"Or a plethora of stories and sayings that display that humans committed deeds which we now consider evil and used their limited understanding of God at that period in history to justify their deeds?"

1) Humans don't cause earthquakes, famines, and pestilences; these are doings of God in the Bible.

2) God is, as I have abundantly shown from biblical texts, the cause of a lot of evil. There is a serious tension here between your ideas of the divinity and goodness of the Bible and your idea that it's actually replete with human errors. Your idea of what the Bible is is extremely confused. You have a lot to explain to claim that the Bible is divine and beneficent. And you're showing how desperate you are to defend that claim. Discussion of the Bible by Christians is full of evasion and sophistry. And, why are Christians so ready to blame humans for everything evil that the Bible presents, and so ready to credit God for everything good that happens. This is not credible. Give us a little more credit and sympathy: most of us are doing the best we can, without any guidance or succor from God.

you're assuming that the Bible can't be understood unless the reader assumes that is true and divine

Come on, of course you are. One instance is that you say that to understand it we have to have the help of the Holy Spirit:

"It was written by and belongs to a faith community, and is interpreted by them, using "the lenses of tradition, reason, and experience... guided by the Spirit."

That's what you and others constantly say about interpretation of the Bible. That precludes its being understood by anyone without any spiritual guidance. You definitely think I can't understand it, even though I'm a fairly competent interpreter of Greek texts; that's because I deny your claims about the divinity of the Bible; and that's because I read the Bible without the assumption that it has to be correct and moral.

>148 criels: I'm just reporting what the Bible says

And I can't remember whether it this thread or a parallel one where it has been pointed out that the bible is not a document that exists in a vacuum and that the faith community interprets their document in the light of their story and tradition. You are welcome to interpret it differently.

Christians so ready to blame humans for everything evil that the Bible presents, and so ready to credit God for everything good that happens

I don't think it's a question of blaming anyone, simply explaining a dynamic of faith communities' evolving understanding of the Divine. At the time they probably didn't consider their deeds evil anyway.

Give us a little more credit and sympathy: most of us are doing the best we can, without any guidance or succor from God.

Is anyone claiming the opposite? I'm not. We all do the best we can, whether we believe in God or not. We tend to use phrases like "all people of good will".

It doesn't bother you that even Jesus--your savior--predicted the imminent end of the present world, and it didn't happen. Jesus' whole mission assumes the imminent end of the world. Your defense of this fact is astonishing, though not surprising. Christians generally don't attribute a monumental mistake like that to Jesus, particularly this one; but they're fine accepting the accounts of the few kind things he did and the good and true things he said. Or are you going to be consistent and attribute those to humans, too? Another problem is that you keep ignoring my main points and simply repeating what you want to claim, which I've already taken some care to argue against. If that's the way you defend Christianity and the Bible, I just don't know what else to say, because it doesn't matter what I say, however much evidence I have for it.

150

Give us a little more credit and sympathy: most of us are doing the best we can, without any guidance or succor from God.

"Is anyone claiming the opposite? I'm not."

Oh, my god! You're saying that no one claims that God provides guidance or succor? I can't imagine what he does do.

"Christians so ready to blame humans for everything evil that the Bible presents, and so ready to credit God for everything good that happens"

I don't think it's a question of blaming anyone, simply explaining a dynamic of faith communities' evolving understanding of the Divine. At the time they probably didn't consider their deeds evil anyway.

This is nonsense. And I've already discussed it adequately.

"And I can't remember whether it this thread or a parallel one where it has been pointed out that the bible is not a document that exists in a vacuum and that the faith community interprets their document in the light of their story and tradition. You are welcome to interpret it differently."

You are just repeating yourself and ignoring my arguments. And no matter how many times you repeat it, it's still irrational.

I've clearly exhausted my usefulness in this whole discussion.

> 146. The odd thing about your continuing indictment of God is that you appear to be basing your judgments on moral values largely (if not totally) generated from Judeo-Christian tradition.

Another odd thing is your harping on hell. I'll grant that many self-labeled Christians have the same fetish. But there are just as many, if not more (I can't count that high), who don't endorse some sort of fire & brimstone conception, if they have opinions on the subject at all.

I, for one, don't have any strong views on the afterlife, other than whatever it might be won't be anything like what my current experience is; since my current experience is mediated by neurophysiological processes that won't be relevant when I flatline.

For what it's worth, my own view of hell is that it might be an extrapolation of a state of mind that resembles what we now call psychotic depression. Absent the figurative language about fiery pits and similar phenomena, the psychological anguish appears to have some resemblance. And please don't misinterpret what I just said to make it seem like I'm equating mental illness with damnation. Far from it. I'm merely speculating how a concept like hell might have come into being. Usually, concepts like this have enduring resonance if they have some relevance to personal experience.

>152 criels: I've clearly exhausted my usefulness in this whole discussion.

We're talking past each other, as so often happens in these LT conversations which are not really conversations. Two different world views. Thanks for engaging, but clearly we are not understanding each other at all.

~153

All of that is very interesting in an abstract way. But what the heck does it have to do with Christianity or the topic of this thread.

>155 lawecon:, Not much, really, but we tend to go off on tangents.

No, not us, never!

(142) In the first place, it's not my responsibility, or my interest, to construct a good god: my part--which is easy--is just to know that your god is decidedly bad, not good.

So, you're setting yourself up as your own god, deciding whether the God of the Bible, or other religions' gods are up to your standards of good or bad.

And where do your standards come from? What makes something either good or bad?

Back to the original topic:

I believe that a "Christian" is a person who has accepted Christ's offer of salvation, as taught in the Bible.

Salvation as taught in the Bible is not a difficult concept, really. Someone has paid a debt you owe (whether or not you acknowledge it). All you have to do is acknowledge the debt and accept the payment, accept the deed of the One Who died for you.

But instead of accepting the simplicity of the Gospel, many have to look for difficulties or so-called contradictions, to 'prove' that they are right and that God is bad, evil, that the Bible is a bunch of fairy stories and myths, and that Hell does not exist.

Why do people do that, go off the deep end and get all upset over something they refer to as myths? Why can't they just live and let live those who choose to believe in God?

My spouse's boss is a self-proclaimed Atheist. He tells anyone who says they are Christian that "There is no Hell!!!" If it were a myth, and he truly believed it was a myth, why would he get so upset over the word?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." ;)

(127) criels wrote: It's not the insistence of Christian exclusivity that has committed the atrocities, it's men who don't follow the teachings of God. The Pharisees plotted to have Jesus Christ killed. Does that make Jehovah, the God of the Jewish religion, the reason for their actions?"

But Jehovah does repeatedly order the Israelites to exterminate whole nations, and leave nothing alive that breathes. Since God ordered these enormities, I think it's fair to hold him responsible for them. Therefore, the Israelites certainly were not " twist(ing) God's word to suit their own purposes and desires." They were following his direct orders, which he did not make optional.

criels, you left out a part of what I had written:

(124)The Pharisees plotted to have Jesus Christ killed. Does that make Jehovah, the God of the Jewish religion, the reason for their actions? No, the Pharisees broke their own laws in order to have Jesus condemned.

The Pharisees knew the law better than anyone, but they broke it in order to get rid of Jesus. They did not have orders from Jehovah to kill Jesus. Much of the Bible is full of stories of how men have twisted what God has said to advance their own agenda.

And those who are opposed to God and the Bible, whether self-described as Christians or Atheists, do the same thing.

I'm really not here to enter into a spitting match with you or anyone, but just to explain what I believe, and why.

Fair enough? :)

The Pharisees knew the law better than anyone, but they broke it in order to get rid of Jesus. They did not have orders from Jehovah to kill Jesus. Much of the Bible is full of stories of how men have twisted what God has said to advance their own agenda.

And, unfortunately, history is replete with examples of how Christians have twisted what God has said to advance their own agendas. Just look the recent crop of presidential candidates.

Are there atrocities in the OT that the are ascribed to God? Yup, no question. I'm horrified when I read that God told the Israelites to wipe out entire cities: men, women, children, and livestock. I believe the Bible is true in that it relates the story of Jews in the OT and Christians in the NT engagement with, and growing understanding of God. I was always taught that God meets us where we are and over time we gain a fuller, transforming understanding. I believe a similar principle applies to the Bible. Like others have said, the Bible is a record of our attempt to understand God. Our understanding will be imperfect because people and societies are imperfect. So as Jews and Christians continued on the spiritual quest to understand God better, the harshness we see mellows.

What's the key for Christians? Love.

Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins. Proverbs 10:12

Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 1 John 4:11

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Romans 13:8,9

(160) And, unfortunately, history is replete with examples of how Christians have twisted what God has said to advance their own agendas. Just look the recent crop of presidential candidates.

I agree. And the more they proclaim their goodness, the more I back away...

"Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?" Proverbs 20:6

(161) What's the key for Christians? Love.

Yep.

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." John 13:34

To #112

Tim:

I think you probably expected an answer to basically this question: whether it (Dei verbum) clearly and coherently describes, in a way that a non-Catholic inquirer can understand, the principles and practice of biblical interpretation espoused by the Catholic Church (as opposed to a critique of the religious ideas that the pope, understandably, assumes for the purpose of this kind of document (e.g. episcopal succession, guidance of the Holy Spirit). I reply accordingly:

The relatively long survey of "salvation history," although in places I thought it a bit obscure, is in general a clear enough introductory account of how God's dealings with humanity from Eden forward finally led to the culmination of his great plan in Jesus Christ. This gives an idea of the Catholic attitude toward the Bible: it is a treasure because it gives us access to God's perfect revelation at the climax of his historical plan.

"As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Rom. 1:20); but teaches that it is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race."

I'm not sure what this means. The best that I can make of it is this: People in places where Jesus is unknown can know God merely by observing the works of nature, and this awareness is "without trace of error". Something that seems strange to me, both in this document and in the passage from Romans, is that neither Jesus nor Christianity is ever mentioned. (Which makes sense, because no one can infer Christianity from merely appreciating nature itself). I've wondered about this ever since I first read this passage. So it's sufficient for people to see the things that are accessible to human reason and thereby know God even if they aren't Christians?

I understand the story that, through uninterrupted apostolic succession, authorized latter-day interpreters can be sure their interpretations are true, because they have inherited the tradition of interpretation from the apostles themselves. Its authority doesn't come from persons or institutions, but from the apostles. I'd say that if one is going to give an account of the legitimacy of church authority, apostolic succession and guidance by the Holy Spirit (if we assume a Holy Spirit) are the only one that has even initial plausibility. And the account is clear enough.

It seems to me that there may be a tension between the role of individual believers understanding the Bible through their own "experience" (which seems in one place to be endorsed) and the idea that correct understanding can come through church dogma,
To what extent are individuals encouraged to read the Bible on their own, and to what extent are they just to rely on the church about the Bible. It seems possible, at least in principle, that the latter could be done without laypersons' doing private reading of the Bible. If I had to guess, I'd say the solution is that Catholics are expected to read a special Bible with church-authorized notes to guide the reader to the right interpretation. Is that correct?

"(T)he books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation."

I find "without error" slightly surprising, since that belief is one that many persons (including many Catholics) call others "fundamentalist" about. I suppose that the further claim of "literalists" sets "fundamentalists" apart. Nevertheless, many lay Catholics tell me that the Bible is flawed, and contains many errors: essentially the line that non-Christians take). (That's one way I got the impression that the Bible wasn't very important to Catholics.) But here the Pope is telling us that Scripture is "without error". (And of course, many Protestants--I dare say most by this time--don't believe in "inerrancy") I'm confused. I guess the difference in this case is that Catholics interpret the Bible so that it doesn't say the barbaric things that "fundamentalists" are willing to admit that it does. Still, why do so many Catholics disagree with the "infallible" Pope about the status of the Bible, which I should think is a major point of doctrine. I suppose it's for the same sort of reasons why Catholics get abortions, use contraceptives, etc. I don't understand the point of claiming to be Catholic and violating the most well-known church doctrines. It suggests to me what I see happening throughout American society: words don't mean anything anymore. Indeed, that's what some Catholics on this thread seem to thing. When I've said that there are certain straightforward statements in the Bible, they're telling me things like "the Bible doesn't say anything." Its as if the Bible didn't originate in a different time and culture, and that some things in the Bible are abhorrent. The resort to telling me about "interpretive communities", etc. It's just vague nonsense that they appeal to when they don't want to face nasty things in the Bible. But they're happy to accept at face value the things in the Bible that please them. And when I cite the Bible and make serious arguments on the basis of it, they ignore my actual points and pull the "interpretive community" and vaguer things on me. And no matter what I say, they ignore it, pick something incidental and entirely irrelevant about it to play with, and repeat the same silly things to me: things I've already made a serious, documented case against. Maybe it would be good for some of them to read sources like this papal document. As it is, they're just making all kinds of wild claims on no basis at all. And some of these, I'm sorry to say, are Catholics or at least say they are.

I find "without error" slightly surprising, since that belief is one that many persons (including many Catholics) call others "fundamentalist" about.

Your surprise should, however, have vanished when you get to the second half of that sentence, which you actually quote but apparently didn't digest. To repeat:

"(T)he books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

I don't really see the point of responding to the 420 words that follow your surprise, since they flow from a fundamental failure to read the text closely.

1. It didn't follow from a failure to read the text closely. I read it 4 or 5 times as sympathetically as I could. I saw the rest of the sentence in question and, in my patent obtuseness I didn't see how this---that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation--made a major difference to the fact that "without error" still means. It tells me that what's without error is the the truth that God put in there for the sake of salvation. What else would it be without error about. And I never said that Catholics interpret scripture the same way Pat Robertson does. I still think "without error" is a strong and noteworthy claim.

2. I wasn't talking about the way church authority interprets scripture, which I know well enough is not stupid. What I said was that "some Catholics" would do well to learn more about their own church's exegetical principles and practice. And what I said about what "some Catholics" have said to me: and it's what I said they said. I thought that was clear enough. I did not mean--or say--that the whole edifice of Catholic exegesis collapses because the words "without error" were contained in a statement of the church's principles of understanding and interpretation.

3. I'm not sure why I can't get people to understand A) some---some some some no doubt ill-informed--Catholics have appealed to "fundamentalism" as a summary way of needing to listen to the person's ideas. And I said that such persons are in fact ill-informed about their church's doctrines and dismiss other people's ideas on the basis of ignorance. That' a historical fact: people have done that to me and otherwise within my hearing. And they need to read their own Church's principles that would instruct them so that they would no better. That's the only reason I remarked if the words "without error." Let me be as clear as I can: If SOME Catholics knew that their teaches that the Bible is "without error", then maybe they wouldn't insult Protestants for thinking that the Bible is without error. THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT ABOUT THE WORDS WITHOUT ERROR. I EMPHATICALLY DID NOT SAY THAT THE CHURCH IS STUPID FOR INCLUDING IN THEIR DOCUMENT ON INTERPRETATON THE WORDS WITHOUT ERROR. I SAID IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THEM TO LEARN WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS, AND STOP STIFLING DISCUSSION BY SAYING THAT "WITHOUT ERROR" IS PART OF THEIR DOGMA AND SOME CATHOLICS WOULD DO WELL TO LEARN THEIR OWN CHURCH'S DOCTRINES ON THE MATTER BEFORE TALKING SO CONDESCENDINGLY TO NON-CATHOLICS BECAUSE OF THAT FAVORITE TERM OF INSULT "WITHOUT ERROR".

4. Now I was not ignoring the rest of the document. Two things were happening. A) I was trying to give a thoughtful reply to your question what I though. I got well into two drafts for my reply. That's because I was trying to answer thoughtfully. So I don't appreciate being told that I neglected or was too stupid to understand the rest of the text. I was working hard on my reply. Even as I was writing I was thinking carefully about my response. So one reason I didn't get far in my reply is that it took a long time to write as much as I had written; so I was tired: I'd been thinking about the text and writing draft material until around 1:00 last night. But when I got to the part about "without error" what "flowed" from that point was frustration about exactly what I just told you and very much about the fact that people on the thread were ignoring things I had thoughtfully written after doing reading for and carefully crafting my replies. And all I was getting were responses that told me stupid things like "the bible doesn't mean anything" and not a serious, thoiughtful response to all the things I wrote carefully and with documentation. Frankly, it looked for all the world like baiting to me. I would have appreciated their paying a modicum of attention to any of my points. But I'm the bad guy. A minority of one. So I can understand why it appeared to you that I hadn't read or understood the rest of the document. I've read it repeatedly and carefully, as I've said: I, unlike some of the other contributors to this thread, was trying to engage in a reasonable discussion and MAYBE--JUST MAYBE--LEARN SOMETHING. I wasn't getting much help toward that end. If you want to see what I'm talking about, then I encouraage you to read what I've written on the thread and the frankly dismissive and disrespectful tripe that others wrote. So, in review, I didn't address the rest of the document; but that doesn't mean that I hadn't read it or understood it. I'm tired of being the bad guy--or more to the point the stupid guy--in some of these pseudo-discussions. I think I deserve a modicum of respect. I hope I've come some way in intellectual advancement since my upbringing in Missipi. As I said, I think I was being baited until I got angry; if that was a goal of any of the writers on the thread, I hate to admit it, but they achieved it. But it hasn't been forthcoming, nor do I have any reason to think. And I don't expect that you're going to have any sympathy with what I've written here as my little valedictory contribution.

I know where I stand. It's been made abundantly clear. If possible, please cancel my lifetime membership in LibraryThing.

"Without error" certainly is a noteworthy claim. But it is not "fundamentalism." When fundamentalists use words like this they apply it across the whole landscape of truth statements in the Bible. At root this passage from Dei Verbum only asserts inerrancy about statements which God wanted to make clear for the sake of salvation. (Further, this statement is immediately followed by a paragraph limiting its application.) While in practice most Catholic theologians would assert the basic truth of large swaths of the Bible, "that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" is potentially a very low bar indeed. It's not clear to me, for example, that more than 1% of the Old Testament would be absolutely necessary to be true if the only point was Christian salvation.

There's a feature to delete your membership.

I never said it was fundamentalism. Is thatstill not clear?

I never said it was fundamentalism. Is thatstill not clear?

We are quibbling now, but you made a serious comparison, which I think is very far from the mark.

I'm not sure what this means. The best that I can make of it is this: People in places where Jesus is unknown can know God merely by observing the works of nature, and this awareness is "without trace of error".

I think you have this backward. The point is that certain truths are in principle knowable from nature and reason alone, but that revelation—eg., the Bible—allows everyone to know it, and to know it solidly. That is, abstract reasoning may reveal certain truths about the world, but it's not easy or certain. Revelation can make it both.

It seems to me that there may be a tension between the role of individual believers understanding the Bible through their own "experience" (which seems in one place to be endorsed) and the idea that correct understanding can come through church dogma

Absolutely. That tension will never be resolved. At its best it's a fruitful tension, with influence both ways.

If I had to guess, I'd say the solution is that Catholics are expected to read a special Bible with church-authorized notes to guide the reader to the right interpretation. Is that correct?

Meh. I don't think there's any particular expectation.

Nevertheless, many lay Catholics tell me that the Bible is flawed, and contains many errors

There is no nevertheless, as I explain. The point is that there are SOME things in scripture which aren't in error. These things are--at a minimum--the stuff that God wanted there for the sake of salvation.

A key difference here is that mere "error" is a blanket term that doesn't cover most of what's important. To say that the Bible contains errors of some sort does not in the least bit mean its not at the center of faith, the best thing you can read right now, etc. Truth operates on different levels. I mean, Aesop contains much that is true while also being 200% false. The story of the creation of the world was not, I think, "believed" by its actual author(1), let alone true. It is nevertheless a critical source of important truth about the world.

Still, why do so many Catholics disagree with the "infallible" Pope about the status of the Bible, which I should think is a major point of doctrine. I suppose it's for the same sort of reasons why Catholics get abortions, use contraceptives, etc. I don't understand the point of claiming to be Catholic and violating the most well-known church doctrines.

Well, I don't think Catholics disagree about the status of the bible. You're seeing assertions about infallibility that just aren't there. I suspect it's rather the other direction or both directions, that most Catholics believe more of the Bible is literally so than Pope Benedict does, but that Benedict would take a hard line one some parts that many Catholics wouldn't put the same stress on. T

o take your two hot-button examples, however, while these two doctrines may well be well-known they are hardly at the core of the faith. No creed has even mentioned either, and neither has been declared an infallible teaching. As regards the latter, the wrongness of using contraception—even if it were infallibly promulgated, which it is not—is not something as to affect whether one should be a Catholic. Catholicism is also against treating your friend badly, disrespecting your parents, skipping church and being totally wasted. Such doctrines are not on the news, but they are surely better known than recent pronouncements about condoms. (Humanae vitae had to be written because the matter wasn't clear; that treating your neighbor as yourself was doctrine has been clear from before Jesus repeated it.) That Catholics continue to do all of these is just life—the reason why we need the church in the first place, even—not a recommendation that all such people should leave the church.

It suggests to me what I see happening throughout American society: words don't mean anything anymore.

Not just America. And not just now. While Biblical criticism has certainly upended many certainties of faith, the way moderns read the Bible is fundamentally out of step with how ancients read it—and everything else.

---

1. As I recall the Quellenforchung, two authors and an editor.

Thank you for a rational and informative reply. It's the first one I've gotten on this thread in quite some time. If I'm mistaken about some of the material we're discussion, I want to learn why I'm mistaken; in other words, I want a rational reply and not just to be told vacuous and silly things. I'm really here to learn something, not to put over my views and not listen. Your last reply acknowledges that, and I appreciate it.

I mean, Aesop contains much that is true while also being 200% false. The story of the creation of the world was not, I think, "believed" by its actual author, let alone true.

Yes, I've been thinking along the same lines; the example that I picked out of the blue was Homer. But here's the thing: from what some on the thread were telling me is roughly equivalent to the idea that you can say that Hektor dies without some fancy interpretation. I know the Iliad was regarded as a font of morality, and people have been interpreting it since antiquity: I wan't denying that. But it's stupid to say that Hektor doesn't die. That's the kind of thing that was driving me berserk.

Please read:

can't say that hektor dies

>170 criels:

The big tension here is that you can take the "The Bible is Aesop!" argument too far—both as fact and as practical, pastoral pragmatics. I believe that you can take a decently skeptical approach to much of the literal truth about the Bible without it in the least bit affecting your conviction of faith. Indeed, I think a "sophisticated" understanding of Biblical truth can be faith-enhancing not reducing. In reality, however, churches that have done this have lost both members and the conviction of their faith. People like certainties, and moderns are accustomed to reading things in modern ways. Most people aren't as eager to hear historical and literary contextualization as I am.

I'll give you an example from a recent sermon at my church, in Portland. The story was that of Jesus and the Samaritan woman (one text). The Priest raised the notion that the passage was a troubling one—one that he dreaded coming round every few years. It made no sense. It made Jesus look bad, etc. He suggested that Jesus was "having a bad day." He then shifted the ground, did some rhetorical slight of hand and hand-waving and refocused attention away from Jesus and toward the faith of the woman alone. The sermon developed from there—the importance of faith, the importance of perseverance, etc.

From where I sit, the whole thing was a disaster. Once you understand the historical context, the problems vanish or at least are completely transformed. Christians need to understand that, lest they come to believe in problems that simply aren't there. But you need that context to get there. Most Catholics aren't aware that Jesus is virtually unattested preaching to anyone but Jews. Most know nothing about Jewish law that would, for instance, bar a Jew from certain sorts of social intercourse with non-Jews. They hear "Canaanite" and they think "boring-biblical-name" alone; they don't pick up that the woman was a gentile let alone the historical emnities involved. You need to explain all this and much more before you can appreciate the passage. Maybe it's not worth it, and it's better to gloss over it and focus elsewhere.

100% agreement. And the last paragraph is particularly well-expressed. I, of course, think it's worth stopping and getting the meaning from historical and contextual information. And it does irritate me when ministers fail to teach it. But you're right: most congregants will hear "boring Bible name" and yawn.

Actually, I heard an Episcopal sermon a few years ago that went similarly. He was a friend, and he asked me to tell him what I thought. So I went into details. Don't remember those details, but it was a rather odd comparison of Mary at the annunciation and a pregnant unwed mother

which kind of left out the "blessed art thou among women" part. important little detail.

Here's a bias I have about biblical "interpretation", I mean the more rarefied versions of it. I, personally like for literature to contain riches that I can extract only through rather arduous contemplation and reading others' observations. But--and I'm admitting it's an a priori bias--I think it should be different with the Word of God, which presumably everybody needs to understand (especially if that's the source of the knowledge of salvation). What about all the stuff about simple people being "blessed" (in a prayer by Jesus: "father I thnk you that you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to babes" or whatever the exact wording. The idea that the only people who can understand the Bible anything llke it's supposed to be understood are "the wise and learned" seems highly peculiar to me. If it's so important for us all to understand, and he had an intention to teach every Christian (or potential Christian) his Word, it seems to me that he should have communicated it to us far more efficiently and lucidly--and a lot less circuitously-- than he ostensibly has in the Bible. And the more need for "interpretation" of the Bible, the more it is evident to me that it's all a matter of human error and groping largely to defend the indefensible. That's fine if you're trying to understand James Joyce, but nobody thinks Finnegan's Wake holds the key to eternal salvation or damnation. This is one reason I say that the Bible is a human document, not a divine one; and appealing to the need for academic interpretation, for me, just corroborates my judgment that it's human and dangerous volume. Nothing divine about it. But I still listen and discuss rationally with people who disagree with that assessment of mine. All I expect is to be treated with a modicum of respect and to be listened to for my turn in the conversation. *I* am not a fundamentalist anymore--as a result of much labor and suffering to extricate myself. But I think that utter confusion over the ostensibly most important truths is not a ridiculous matter; and the obvious barbarity in the Bible--which is no small part of its contents--poses a robust moral problem. So the question arises, in my mind, why make the all-important Word, given its universal importance--be so darn opaque that it takes experts to divine its meaning? I know it would be a little less interesting to people who like to penetrate the abstruse, and exegetes would be working in fast food or something, but I just can't understand why God couldn't/wouldn't have given us a clear message in the first place about eternally important matters. And above all: why didn't God leave out all the cruelty, not the least of which is damnation in Hell, so we wouldn't get so confused and afraid, etc.: if he meant it Hell to be understood airily and innocuously, then the simple among us might miss that memo. And I'm tired of being told I'm a "fundamentalist"because I think Hell's inclusion in the Divine Word is a serious moral problem. I'm different in that I eventually got some literary and philosophical education: something that's rare in my pit of a home state, in which many are ignorantly trapped for a lifetime: it's a Southern tradition, hallowed by many generations of Hell-preaching Bible thumpers. And I'm tired of being insulted for having thought in my youth that Hell is a serious matter, and that it is still a serious matter now for anybody who reads it without the favor of vast erudition to divine that it isn't a big deal. I can't get across to lots of folks that for God to be perfectly loving, just, etc., and leave us any reason to think that he has prepared damnation in fire for his helpless human creatures, could be viewed by even a rational person as a serious moral contradiction. I call the world to observe that I said not that the problem is that he's actually sending people to Hell--I'd say that if I were a fundamentalist, as I'm not--but the idea causes people to become very sad and screwed up (and I'm a specimen of that), because a naive reader might understandably think that God is sending people to Hell.. And since I pointed that out on this this thread, I've been favored by the notice that I have a "Hell fetish." I really like that one, Hell fetish: I've never gotten that before, and I think it tops the list of stupid and barbaric things that have been attributed to me in these discussions. I would submit that that isn't part of a reasonable, good faith discourse in a civilized forum. (As an aside, that's the second fetish I've learned I have in a week's time here on LT. And all for free. Last time, of all things, it was a "sentience fetish." (I didn't know sentience was such a problematic or deranged concept before.) Not the least benefit I've derived from the last two threads I've joined is that I've been diagnosed with *two* previously undetected psychiatric disorders. Anyway, the Hell fetish: That makes me disrespect the person who says it, because it is cruel and ignorant and it ignores people's real and understandable suffering over such extreme cruelty being attributed to God, who, after all, is perfect Goodness. After all that, it still seems to me that, silly little bumpkin idea that it is, it's still a reasonable moral complaint. I understand that I virtually always misunderstand the wisdom I'm being proffered in relgion fora--well, I think that's more of a two-way street than sone people think. It strikes me as very problematic that it's in there. This is real stuff, and I regard it as serious and as deserving of sympathy, not dismissive, asinine scorn. And that's where the old "fundamentalism" dismissal comes in: thinking that the doctrine of Hell is a real problem makes me a fundamentalist unworthy of a moment's further regard. It's slightly like saying that no matter how many times I'm told by jerks that I have a Hell fetish, I still see a considerable moral problem there. I no longer believe in Hell, but it has left major, permanent scars that never heal. It's no better than telling a child abuse victim that she has a child abuse fetish. All I get is ridicule when I say that God should have prevented that unless he has a sadism problem. I know I had a miserable childhood and young adulthood because of the doctrine of Hell. And no appeal to "interpretive communities" is going to vindicate it. I'll put it like this: if Hell is not what it could well be taken to be from the Bible (hot, literal, worm dieth not, fire never quenched), why did he not relieve me of all that by leaving that kind of vomit out of the Bible. I was an ignorant sufferer because I expected eternal torture: and, if one is understanding, I could be pardoned for thinking so. But in remote seminaries, I didn't know that the information existed that Hell wasn't real, or is much more innocuous than I could have gathered just from reading the Bible.

This isn't an interpretation question. It's a problem of evil and the notorious "hiddenness" of God question. In other words, a moral question. I would appreciate it if, instead of insulting me when I say I find Hell a moral problem, they at least acknowledge that there is a problem. Or if they would keep their playground insults to themselves.

>176 criels: I think it should be different with the Word of God

And you're entitled to think that, just as others are entitled to think differently.

I don't deny your experience that many Christians are screwed up by thinking about hell. But please don't deny the experience of others, posted on a number of recent threads, that for many Christians hell is just not something they worry about. Live a good life to the best of one's ability and worry about the rest later. I move within a number of Christian denominations on more than one continent and I don't find people screwed up by thoughts of hell. That experience is as true and valid as yours.

> 176. As the person who uttered the phrase "hell fetish," I sincerely apologize to you for the distress it caused you. You're so right that this concept has traumatized many thousands of people with severe psychological anguish. Since my ill advised remark caused you pain, I ask your forgiveness.

#178

Thank you. That helps. Forgiveness granted.

#177

"But please don't deny the experience of others, posted on a number of recent threads, that for many Christians hell is just not something they worry about."

I never did deny, and would never deny, that others don't worry about it: that has been manifest to me for a very long time, including on this thread. What I don't get is why many Christians deny that the inclusion of Hell in God's putatively perfect Word is a problem worth considering in light of God's supposed moral perfection. If he was perfectly moral as well as omnipotent, how would that square with the idea that he let Hell even seem to be in the Bible? And this is why I'm sensitive to the dismissal of my question on grounds that it takes supernatural exegetical acuity--which I obviously neither have nor claim to have--to ascertain something as basic as whether Hell is included in the Bible; it just is, and it's silly to deny that it's there. But many laypersons assume the answer is no, Hell is just a piece of silliness. Or, more accurately, when these texts are interpreted with the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit, the problem of Hell just melts away like butter left in the noonday sun. If that is so, I really need some explanation of how exegesis justifies this claim. It would also help if someone would give me a concrete example of correct interpretation of the concrete passages I've cited on this thread. about Hell, instead of just appealing to the idea that exegesis will render it negligible. As it is, people are telling me that the pseudo-problem of Hell can be--and in fact is--cancelled by divine interpretation, but not bothering to give me an inkling of how exegesis even mitigates , to say nothing of justifies, what seems to me a real problem. Nobody has actually tried to explain to me how this can be the case. And at the same time, God's word, according to the doctrine of their own church, is perfect. But nobody yet has addressed my question: it's just obvious to anyone, evidently, that there is no Hell, whatever the Bible may say (or clearly seem to say, even if it doesn't say that). (And please don't tell me that it "doesn't say anything".) It seems evident to them that the kind passages mean what they seem to mean without any appeal to the necessity of subtle, divine exegesis. As I, and many other persons, not all of them stupid, read the Bible, we find it obviously in there). And nobody has ever offered me even an attempt at a real answer: it's just that I'm incapable of understanding the Bible even at the simplest level. As I said before, the Bible certainly leaves the impression to a "naive" reader that it does preach Hell and that Hell isn't a credit to the Lord's character, which is supposed to be perfectly good and beneficent. It frustrates me that people think the Bible is divine and perfect and yet contains a doctrine that there is a Hell. I can't think of anything more imaginatively cruel than to leave people to think that God has prepared Hell for those who somehow miss the salvation boat (as I did myself). And when I ask that question, What I'm looking for is the answer why it is justified to call God the quintessence of perfect goodness when he leaves people to believe, in his putatively perfect word, that he has prepared establishment of post-mortem torture.

And the worst of all this is that the Bible not only contains the doctrine of Hell. It also leaves a complete lack of clarity about how to become a Christian, and so avoid this fate. This is surely detestable.

And just a little postscript: my dad believes to this day that I am going to Hell. Worse than that, he tells me that the fact that I didn't get "the peace that passes all understanding", after praying for it for two decades, is my fault, not God's. I must not have been sincere in my effort to acquire salvation. That means that he believes that whatever his capricious and cruel God does is "justice". And he disbelieves me when I say that I was sincerely seeking salvation for so many years. And he is an exceedingly kind-hearted man. It's his Christianity that makes him say such things, totally out of character for an otherwise truly kind man.

#177

"Live a good life to the best of one's ability and worry about the rest later."

This is obviously the right approach and perfect advice. I absolutely endorse it. It's what I've tried to do since I finally concluded that I wasn't going to get any help from God. But I've been able to do this only since I became convinced that both the Bible and Christianity itself were radically false.

> 180. It also leaves a complete lack of clarity about how to become a Christian

I can't agree with you there. In response to the OP, I believe that the "lowest common denominator" can be boiled down into one sentence: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

To me this is very clear. It is also very hard to do. Many who claim to be Christians manifestly fall short most of the time when it comes to this commandment. I know I do.

And yet, there are occasions when I believe I've actually come close. Those are good times, really good times. So good, that I keep trying to practice re-capturing those occasions.

Does a person have to be a Christian to accept that commandment and have those feelings? No. That's why I disagree with the concept of Christian exclusivity. (We've been over that ground before.)

So sometimes, for practice, I try to read the hard things in the Bible with the spirit of love. In other words, I try to assume that the person who wrote (and/or scribed) a difficult passage was activated by the spirit of love and was somehow operating out of a desire to communicate something tremendously important. Sometimes I get a glimmer an idea of how to understand that passage in that light. Sometimes not. So then, I make a note to try to read the passage again at a time when I might be in a more loving state of mind.

As an exercise, I also occasionally try to read non-religious literature in the same spirit.

#182

'I can't agree with you there. In response to the OP, I believe that the "lowest common denominator" can be boiled down into one sentence: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."'

A couple of problems with this: A) Other passages in the Bible seem clearly to contain other requirements for salvation in addition to this one, and these others are contradictory among themselves. That's why I could never bring myself to be sure that any one passage, e.g. the one you cite here, would alone ensure salvation. B) There are many places in the Bible that show cruelty that seems inconsistent with love; or rather a very mistaken understanding of what to say out of love. Again, that's why I regard the Bible as a mass of human error and confusion. C) The Bible does not offer a level of clarity about how to attain salvation that is *commensurate* with the horrible consequences that apparently result from not achieving salvation. If a perfect, divine book suggests that there is a torturing Hell--and maybe an eternal one--it is extremely important that the message of salvation be clear. That's certainly how I experienced that matter.

Here's the most I can say about having "a spirit of love" toward biblical authors and characters, and attributing a spirit of love to them toward others; and it really is a significant point. Christians, from the Apostles to the present, have almost always thought they were acting--and in fact usually were acting--in a spirit of love when they said and did unconscionable things on account of their religiion, much like my father: But they were wrong about the things they said out of love, and that's what's lamentable.

> 183. they were wrong about the things they said out of love, and that's what's lamentable.

Yes, lamentable and paradoxical. There are so many things about Christianity (and life) that are paradoxical -- including all the contradictions. But it seems to me that Christianity is not as aggressively paradoxical as other religions, like Buddhism, for example.

Not that paradox is a bad thing. G.K. Chesterton built quite a literary reputation indulging his love of both Christianity and paradox.

Deleted because I inadvertently posted the same material twice

168

Apparently there is serious confusion about the church teaching on contraception. These quotations come from apparently confused Catholics about their own church's doctrine concerning the question "Is birth control teaching infallible?" (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=110257)

I particularly sympathize with the frustration this Catholic woman expresses:

"My 'progressive Catholic Community' is going to drive me insane. After a lively discussion on 'the Church CAN teach error when it comes to faith and morals - it's only statements by the Pope that he claims are infallible that are really infallible' (aaaghh!!!) the topic of birth control came up. I kept quiet on this one because I haven't done a lot of research on it yet. But, can someone help me - is the Church's teaching on the immorality and mortal sin of artificial birth control infallible? If so, why is it infallible? When was this teaching first officially documented (I know it has always been taught). Is it a statement out of an ecumenical council?"

And here's an evidently confused--misunderstanding--man who is pretty darn sure about the status of this doctrine. I'd say about as sure as you are of the opposite:

"The ordinary teaching Magisterium of the Church is infallible. IOW, the Pope has never made an ex cathedra declaration that Jesus was raised from the dead. But it is an infallible teaching. It is the continuous and unchanged teaching of the church and binding on the faithful de fide. The prohibition on contraception is also the ongoing and unchanging teaching of the church, based on the natural moral law. It is, therefore, infallible. . . .

Your friends are mistaken in thinking that a declared ex cathedra statement of the Extraordoinary Magisterium is required in order for a matter to be required de fide.

CA libraries has this article on contraception (link to article given) in the Church Fathers and this one (link to article given) on birth control.

You might delicately ask your friends if they understand the difference between the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Magisterium. Get them to do some of their own homework!"
__________________

I'm sorry, but honestly, here and elsewhere, you seem to me to be making up your theology ad hoc as you go along.

168

Here's an article on contraception from the website that promotes the writings of the late Fr. John Hardon, apparently a candidate for beatification: http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/fatal.asp

The title of the article is Contraception: Fatal to the Faith. He affirms the truth of the title.

>180 criels: It also leaves a complete lack of clarity about how to become a Christian

Like jburlinson in>182 jburlinson:, I would not agree with you here. I think the bible contains a lot about how to become a Christian. Of course there are disagreements over the finer points, but the sheer number of Christians in the world today and throughout history suggests that plenty of people have found enough clarity.

>182 jburlinson: I try to read the hard things in the Bible with the spirit of love

Thanks for this reminder of the primacy of love.

>183 criels: The Bible does not offer a level of clarity about how to attain salvation that is *commensurate* with the horrible consequences that apparently result from not achieving salvation

Well for me, doing my best to love my neighbour, effectively, "Live a good life to the best of one's ability", certainly gives me enough peace of mind not to worry about hell.

188

". . .doing my best to love my neighbour, effectively, "Live a good life to the best of one's ability. .. ."

I can understand how you can equate the two perfectly reasonably, and that's great: so much the better for everyone with whom you come into contact. Nobody--certainly not I--can naysay living according to this principle. I just note two further points. 1) even atheists can, and do, live according to this same principle, so one doesn't have to be a Christian to do so. But I think you've said that Christianity isn't exclusive, so you probably wouldn't disagree with this point. That's excellent, and there is nothing objectionable about it. 2) I doubt you even need to worry about this one, because you probably observe it already; but, just for the record: It's crucial to avoid the mistakes made by countless others who have tried to live and act out of love, but were wrong--sometimes terribly wrong--about the things they said and did out of love. And many of them--including very many Christians and believers in other religions--said and did such harmful things because they thought God had directed them to do so.

>189 criels: Well, I won't disagree with either of those points. All sorts of people, religious and non-religious, have done all sorts of harmful things, often for the best of intentions. It is of course crucial to try and avoid those sort of mistakes.

182

> 180. It also leaves a complete lack of clarity about how to become a Christian (my statement)

reply at 182

'I can't agree with you there. In response to the OP, I believe that the "lowest common denominator" can be boiled down into one sentence: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."'

"To me this is very clear."

My reply:

I would be glad to show from various biblical passages that the way to salvation is more complicated and unclear than you assert. Again, this is certainly so for a "naive reader" (as I was in my youth). But, given the nature of argument about the Bible in this thread, I don't think it would achieve much to justify my effort. You are quoting parts of the Bible that you like; but my quotations are worthless. Can you say "double standard?"

190

Thank you.

> 191. You are quoting parts of the Bible that you like; but my quotations are worthless.

You are right. I quote parts of the Bible that I like. If I find that these parts enrich my life, I fail to see how that's a problem. If I'm inspired to perhaps try to behave better because of these parts, I'm hoping that might have good consequences for the folks I might encounter. I'm not much of a do-gooder by nature, so I need a little moral support most of the time.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "my quotations are worthless." Do you mean that because you can find contradictory statements in the Bible, then the quotes that I like are erroneous or invalid and I should reject them? Or do you feel that your quotations haven't been given appropriate consideration? I'm sorry if I've missed your point.

193

"Or do you feel that your quotations haven't been given appropriate consideration?"

That's it. Thank you for asking.

> 194. OK. Which of your quotations do you feel didn't get treated adequately? I don't mean to seem obtuse, but there have been a lot of posts in this thread and I'm not sure which you're referring to.

BTW -- On a lot of LT groups, not just this Christianity one, many of my postings don't get a response of any kind at all. That happens a lot to other people as well. So please don't feel singled out by what may seem like a lack of respect or indifference. I think it's just the way of the world -- or at least the virtual world.

(127) criels wrote: It's not the insistence of Christian exclusivity that has committed the atrocities, it's men who don't follow the teachings of God. The Pharisees plotted to have Jesus Christ killed. Does that make Jehovah, the God of the Jewish religion, the reason for their actions?"

This quotation is not from me, as your label says. It is what you said and I answered as follows:

But Jehovah does repeatedly order the Israelites to exterminate whole nations, and leave nothing alive that breathes. Since God ordered these enormities, I think it's fair to hold him responsible for them. Therefore, the Israelites certainly were not " twist(ing) God's word to suit their own purposes and desires." They were following his direct orders, which he did not make optional.

> 196. I'm confused. Post number 127 was written in response to post 124, which was written by "fuzzi." I didn't write post 124, so I didn't think it appropriate for me to reply to post 127. It seemed to be addressed to "fuzzi."

I can't be held responsible for what "fuzzi" had to say. In the same way, I don't think the various authors of the gospels are accountable for, or need to be consistent with, the authors/redactors of 1st & 2nd Kings. They are all very different books for very different audiences written many centuries apart.

As far as Jehovah's responsibility for his pronouncements in the books of Kings goes, within the context of those stories, sure -- he's responsible. But these books were written by people who were not writing factual history in anything like the modern sense. Nor were they writing about "real people" doing "real things." No more than Homer was writing about real people or real gods in the Iliad or the Odyssey. Whoever Homer was.

I don't believe that the authors of, say, the book of Genesis had any intention of trying to pretend they were writing a "you are there" kind of news report about the creation. The same is true of, for example, whoever wrote about the exploits of Samson. The same is true of the gospels, which are not biographies in the way we might understand biography. Trying to treat these writings like contemporary documents only leads to headache and heartache.

168

"Catholicism is also against treating your friend badly, disrespecting your parents, skipping church and being totally wasted"

At least some modes of non-religious thought are also against the same things (save not attending church). But Catholicism, as a religion rather than a secular philosophy, includes some other far less salutary, indeed superstitious, doctrines and traditions that the church also commands the faithful to accept and live by. I'm for the *avowedly* secular approach of accepting and acting on good moral ideas and rejecting bad, superstitious ones. And so are most contemporary avowed Catholics. I well understand that more modern-minded persons, to their moral credit, want to downplay, deny, or reject the superstitious and harmful aspects of Catholicism. But that is not a religious, or at least not an authentically Catholic (so far as I can tell) approach. That approach isn't available to truly observant Catholics, who are officially and ostensibly divinely obligated to accept the bad (which the church also claims to be true and divine and from God) with the good that the church teaches and prescribes. So far as I've been able to form an impression of the Catholic church, it isn't a "pick and choose" religion, but one that claims divine authority. It isn't democratic, and people today want things to be democratic: including things that are not. Again, I don't understand how persons who disavow and violate church dogmas, and pick and choose among them (or from secular sources) continue to call themselves Catholic.

"Post number 127 was written in response to post 124, which was written by "fuzzi.""

Quite correct. I'm sorry if I didn't indicate that clearly. And my post #127 was addressed entirely to "fuzzi". None of it had to do with you.

And if I did leave the impression that I held you responsible for anything fuzzi said, that was totally by mistake. If you'd like me to change the post to a clearer format, please tell me how I can do that, and I will.

>198 criels: Catholicism also teaches the ultimate primacy of individual conscience. I have quoted on several recent threads Joseph Ratzinger aka Benedict XVI saying no less. Incidentally I didn't find this quote; it was used in a speech by a Catholic bishop.

Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.

(Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967).

>200 John5918:, Very interesting. I knew that individual Catholics gave conscience primacy, but didn't realize it was part of the church body of teaching. I thought that the attitude of the church would be, "when in doubt, trust us," which in itself isn't a bad idea. I think it's easier for individuals as "lone rangers" to err and the body of believers provides an important compass check. IMO we must continually balance two opposites: The radical individualism versus totalitarianism.

(176) criels wrote: The idea that the only people who can understand the Bible anything llke it's supposed to be understood are "the wise and learned" seems highly peculiar to me.

It is, I agree. The average or even 'simple' person can understand all he or she needs to know about God through the Bible. People make it way too complicated.

(177) johnthefireman: Live a good life to the best of one's ability and worry about the rest later.

That is the general belief held by millions of people. It's too bad that God's word says otherwise. There is only one way to God, and NOW is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2).

... I move within a number of Christian denominations on more than one continent and I don't find people screwed up by thoughts of hell. That experience is as true and valid as yours.

I think that most of Europe and much of North America has become lukewarm, 'apostate' about their faith. They don't want to hear about it, they don't want to think about it, and they don't want to worry about it.

But if what Jesus said is truth, and I believe it is truth, than many are on the broad path of destruction, headed for an eternity they would rather not face to put it gently.

Putting your head in the sand like an ostrich might feel right, but it doesn't make the consequences of non-action go away.

And I don't intend for this to cause anyone pain. Sometimes things in life hurt, but that doesn't make them less real or true.

(180) criels, I'd like to help if I can. I'm sorry for all that you have been suffering or agonizing over the presence of Hell.

It frustrates me that people think the Bible is divine and perfect and yet contains a doctrine that there is a Hell. I can't think of anything more imaginatively cruel than to leave people to think that God has prepared Hell for those who somehow miss the salvation boat (as I did myself). And when I ask that question, What I'm looking for is the answer why it is justified to call God the quintessence of perfect goodness when he leaves people to believe, in his putatively perfect word, that he has prepared establishment of post-mortem torture.

And the worst of all this is that the Bible not only contains the doctrine of Hell. It also leaves a complete lack of clarity about how to become a Christian, and so avoid this fate. This is surely detestable.

And just a little postscript: my dad believes to this day that I am going to Hell. Worse than that, he tells me that the fact that I didn't get "the peace that passes all understanding", after praying for it for two decades, is my fault, not God's. I must not have been sincere in my effort to acquire salvation. That means that he believes that whatever his capricious and cruel God does is "justice". And he disbelieves me when I say that I was sincerely seeking salvation for so many years. And he is an exceedingly kind-hearted man. It's his Christianity that makes him say such things, totally out of character for an otherwise truly kind man.

Hell isn't something that anyone should like, or think that it's great for others to go there. I wouldn't want my worst enemy to go there. Before Saddam Hussein was hanged, I prayed sincerely for him to get saved,born again. I did the same for Bin Laden, but doubt that either of those men accepted Christ before they died. I hate that thought, no matter how vile or awful they were in this life.

God is holy, perfect and good. He also balances His love with wrath for those who thumb their nose at Him and reject Him and His son.

It has been written that God created Hell for the devil and his angels, not men. By rejecting His offer of salvation, forgiveness for our sin, we put ourselves into Hell. Hey, we don't want Him, where else would we go when we die?

Now, in your case, you seem to be sincere about wanting to know about salvation and how to get it. You've prayed, and God has not answered you, not yet. I will say this with all sincerity, that sometimes we don't follow the pattern of so many others who have heard a preacher and walked down the aisle and gotten 'saved'. Personally, I went to church on and off all my life, but didn't really understand about the difference between a heart knowledge and a head knowledge of Christ until I was 40 years old.

Why did I wait so long? What took so long? I don't know, but I am glad that the Lord spoke to me, strongly, back in October of 2000.

My father, who was raised as an Episcopalian, came to church with me on many occasions after I was born again. Nothing ever happened, he sat there and enjoyed the service but never felt the need to go forward and get saved. Was that his fault? Was it God's? Or perhaps it just wasn't his time, yet? But the Lord's ways are perfect, and not understandable by us...and a week before his 79th birthday, my dad "got it" and realized what he needed to do. In my living room, he asked the Lord to save him.

I seriously don't think it's "your fault" for not praying hard enough, criels, but more likely it's just not your time, yet.

I'll pray for you to have peace and understanding, and to someday truly understand what the Lord wants of you. And then, like a child, you will see it and not worry anymore about what some Pharisees teach about how important their opinions and traditions are. You'll know the Lord for Who He is, and experience His love.

Hi everyone!

Just found that page today:
http://www.plough.com/ebooks/index.html

195

First, you make a good point that I hadn't considered:

"BTW -- On a lot of LT groups, not just this Christianity one, many of my postings don't get a response of any kind at all. That happens a lot to other people as well. So please don't feel singled out by what may seem like a lack of respect or indifference. I think it's just the way of the world -- or at least the virtual world."

I think my comments should be thought about seriously, and ideally answered with above average thoughtfulness, because of my own seriousness about these topics and the extraordinary amount of effort and pertinent documentation that I put into them. But I now see more clearly that in practice I'm expecting too much of persons in this forum; and that's my fault. Insofar as this is the case, then I hereby apologize to everyone involved for my acerbic tone and for demanding more time and effort than they can reasonably give to this thread, considering the other things they have to do with their time and energy every day.

First, I send this for everyone involved, particularly Tim, johnthefireman, and jburlinson. I'm sorry.

For the record, though, I still stand by the substance of the things I've written, although definitely not the way I put them.

Later I'll attempt to answer the question in 195.

>202 fuzzi: fuzzi, I would simply say that just because your interpretation of the bible doesn't agree with that of other people and other denominations doesn't make them lukewarm, apostate or putting their heads in the sand, ostrich-like. It might just mean that the Holy Spirit has led them to interpret the bible, and their relationship with God, differently from you.

193

"Which of your quotations do you feel didn't get treated adequately?"

First, this observation on Christian exclusiveness. The initial conceptual error I made in the thread was to seem to equate (or in fact did equate, I'm not sure which) this: "Christianity is exclusive" with this: "One cannot at the same time be a Christian and an adherent of any other religious doctrine." While I think the latter statement is true, it unduly restricts the scope of the statement "Christianity is exclusive." However, strongly in favor of my point about the role of doctrine in Christian exclusiveness are the obviously true remarks at post #140 in this thread:

"Who isn't a Christian?

Well, ah, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. aren't Christians.

'"Good people" without more aren't Christians. (In fact, there is some reason to believe that you don't have to be a "good person" to be a Christian.)"

This set of three comments, as I said, is totally correct; yet I have seen some posts (I don't have time to go back and cite them) that either strongly imply or explicitly state that members of these religions are as well-off in the sight of the Christian god (or some other god that can effect salvation?) as professed and practicing Christians. The problem with this claim is that Christianity has always been very assertive in saying that it is the one true religion, and that Jesus is the only way to the one true God (at least until the past century, when anyone could claim anything about Christianity and gain a following). Christianity is, by definition and nature, not a universalist religion. I think that all of this is very hard to deny on the basis of any relevant documented evidence, in particular, biblical evidence. By "Christianity is exclusive" I mean not only that members of other religions (which is what I unintentionally seemed to say at first) but also that everyone who is not religious, is outside the Christian fold and thus bereft of salvation. I think that "Christianity is exclusive" in this broader sense is easier to establish (indeed irrefutable) than that "One cannot at the same time be a Christian and an adherent of any other religious doctrine." So I should have said is that Christianity is exclusive, period.

I'm sending this preface now; soon I'll start quoting the passages you asked about.

> 207. Thank you for your preface. I hope you'll indulge me if I provide a preface to my possible rejoinder(s) to your future postings. The following is an extended quotation from the introduction to Contemplative Prayer by Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk. The introduction was written by Thich Nhất Hạnh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk. Both of these men were members of good standing in their respective religious communities. They are not considered eccentrics, nor are they considered extremists. Nhất Hạnh wrote:

Buddhists and Christians know that nirvana, or the Kingdom of God, is within their hearts. The Gospels speak of the Kingdom of God as a mustard seed planted in the soil of consciousness. Buddhist sutras speak of Buddha nature as the seed of enlightenment that is already in everyone's consciousness. The practices of prayer and meditation help us touch the most valuable seeds that are within us, and they put us in contact with the ground of our being. Buddhists consider nirvana, or the ultimate dimension of reality, as what Christian protestant theologian Paul Tillich called the "ground of being." The original mind, according to Buddhism, is always shining. Afflictions such as craving, anger, doubt, fear, and forgetfulness are what block the light, so the practice is to remove or transform these five hindrances. With the energy of mindfulness present, transformation takes place naturally. When the energy of the Holy Spirit is within you, understanding, love, peace, and stability are possible. God is within. 'You are, yet you are not, but I am in you.' In Buddhism, we use words like 'interbeing' and 'nonself.'

Notice how effortlessly Nhất Hạnh equates mindfulness with the Christian Holy Spirit, how seamlessly he interweaves concepts and images from the two traditions into what strike me as unobjectionable insights.

Merton and Nhất Hạnh were great friends until the day Merton died. When Nhất Hạnh lost his Buddhist spiritual guide in the late 1960's, Merton told his friend, "Brother, please know your teacher is now utterly free,' a sentiment with which Nhất Hạnh was in total agreement.

So, regardless of quotations from either Buddhist or Christian scripture to the contrary, two flesh and blood people could affirm each other, and each other's religion, without compromising their own faiths. This kind of thing happens all the time between real-live Christians and Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Sufis, etc. After all, in Islam, Jesus is considered to be a Messenger of God and the Masih (Messiah) who was sent to guide the Children of Israel.

#195: "Which of your quotations do you feel didn't get treated adequately?"

I'll concentrate on the word "adequately". And I'll simply quote the biblical passages themselves, without any of the comments I made on the basis of them, as I think the question means. I'll indicate where in the thread where I cited each verse.

On the subject of Christian exclusiveness:

post #116: 1) "We know that we are God’s children, and that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols." (1 John 5: 19-21)

2) "Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person." (2 John 1:8)

post #121 1) "Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?" (1Corinthians 10:14 ff.)

2) "‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it." And the seldom cited and little known story, which occurs in all three synoptic gospels, about Jesus' deliberately hiding his message through parables, but then explaining clearly in private to his disciples, i.e. :

"When (Jesus) was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that
“they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven. . . .
He did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples." (Mark 4:10-12)

I'll have to answer this question piecemeal. This much for now, more to come later.

#208

"So, regardless of quotations from either Buddhist or Christian scripture to the contrary. . ."

Since I have no chance of affecting your idea "regardless of quotations", it's obvious that it would be vain for me to answer your question "Which of your quotations do you feel didn't get treated adequately?". Therefore I hereby cease to send quotations. (I know that everyone here will be heartbroken by this loss.) Thank you for letting me know this before I'd taken the time and trouble to send more. I was also going to send my quotations on other points we've discussed, too; but I have every reason to expect that this would be as pointless as citing the ones above. No hard feelings, and happy trails.

> 210. Once again, I didn't express myself particularly well. All I meant by "regardless of quotations" was that Merton and Nhất Hạnh didn't let quotations get in the way of their friendship or their mutual respect.

I didn't mean that any quotations you might adduce would be pointless as regards this internet thread.

So I hope you'll continue to contribute to this thread as the spirit moves you.

As time permits, I'll try to tackle the quotes you provide in # 209. Probably one by one, just to keep myself focused. Bear in mind, though, that I'm no theologian and definitely do not purport to speak on behalf of anyone but myself. So there are undoubtedly other Christians who very well might see things differently.

>207 criels: outside the Christian fold and thus bereft of salvation.

I think it is obviously true that a Muslim or Jew is not a Christian. But that doesn't necessarily mean "bereft of salvation". Tim and I have both recently quoted Lumen Gentium from the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council, which accepts that God is working (if incompletely) through other religions and people of good will. There have also been references on LT threads to the fact that we cannot pin down God's salvation. While there may well be "normative" ways for Christians, God is free to do as God chooses, and may well turn out to be less exclusive than religions believe.

>165 criels: "I know where I stand. It's been made abundantly clear. If possible, please cancel my lifetime membership in LibraryThing."

Please don't go away, sir. It's completely refreshing to see a discussion of this nature not degenerate into a bitchslapping contest. So far, everyone contributing has been thoughtful and respectful (a rare occurance, indeed), if not able to encompass all of the facets of the matter. If it gets to be too much, step away for a bit. But come back and swing again. You are valued.

>172 timspalding: "I'll give you an example from a recent sermon at my church, in Portland. The story was that of Jesus and the Samaritan woman"

Tim, I haven't heard anyone get a good handle on that one - makes me cringe. Would it be a proper interpretation (sounds like you know a good deal more about exegesis than I do) that Jesus is experiencing a lightbulb moment? That the Canaanite woman is helping him to expand his own understanding about his life's mission?

Somehow, we forget that Jesus must have come by his understanding just the way we all do - incrementally and with lots of varied inputs.

Oh, heck! I'm catching up on 100 posts on this thread, and I can't find the several references on paradox, etc., which is something I've always gloried in. And JohnTF recently sent me to reading Richard Rohr, who's daily reflection the other day was precisely speaking to that:

"Often Paul appears to be a dualistic teacher, but actually he is a dialectical teacher. In dialectics we use two different ideas and use them both to overcome their apparent contradictions. Paul often talks in terms of law and freedom, flesh and spirit, nature and grace, weakness and strength, but he is usually not presenting a strict dualism—although we hear him that way because the Western mind is well-trained in dualistic thinking. The nature of a transformed consciousness, however, is that such a mind and heart can deal with paradoxes and seeming contradictions. I call this nondual thinking, contemplation, or even “prayer.”

"Once we know that Paul is speaking from this larger and even mystical level, we will stop trying to pull him down into our either/or mind. We often think he is making a total elimination of one or the other when he really isn’t. Let me use the most problematic issue with Paul’s language of flesh and Spirit, which could appear to be a total dualism between bad and good. The flesh is often another word for the false self or the ego, and the Spirit is certainly the true self that we are in God; yet they both are essential parts of the human self—that God works with and loves! Finally, human life is a dance between the True Self (Spirit) and the false self (the flesh), they both allow and draw from one another. Your false self never fully goes away, nor does it need to. The only problem is when you do not even know that you have a True Self to ground you, draw you forward, pull you deeper, and forgive the very weaknesses of the false self! (Think about that for awhile, please!) This is dialectical thinking at its best, and might even be called wisdom."

Nicely put.
I'm printing that out to take home with me this evening. I'm much slower on the uptake than most in this room. I wish I had the time and the patience to give all of the posts here a more thorough reading.

Peace to you all.

>172 timspalding:, 213:

"Often Paul appears to be a dualistic teacher, but actually he is a dialectical teacher. In dialectics we use two different ideas and use them both to overcome their apparent contradictions. Paul often talks in terms of law and freedom, flesh and spirit, nature and grace, weakness and strength, but he is usually not presenting a strict dualism—although we hear him that way because the Western mind is well-trained in dualistic thinking. The nature of a transformed consciousness, however, is that such a mind and heart can deal with paradoxes and seeming contradictions. I call this nondual thinking, contemplation, or even “prayer.”

This was a good way of putting it. It isn't dualistic either/or. Rather we're held in the tension between the two extremes, like a spring, which hopefully keeps us on track. I don't know what this phenomenon is called but feel sure someone in the last 2000 years must have noticed this. I call it the principle of paradox or balance because I believe that somehow the range of choices between whatever two extremes there are is where we should be. Some of the paradoxes I've noted are chaos and order, determinism and free will, and... my mind goes blank. : (

> 172, 213. The passage with the Canaanite woman strikes me as an instance, one among several, demonstrating Jesus' good nature, his sense of humor. It seems to me that the little exchange about the sheep and the dogs reveals the ready wit of the Canaanite woman and Jesus' quick appreciation of it -- in contrast to the chauvinism and lack of imagination of the disciples. The tone of this repartee might be closer to Oscar Wilde than Oscar de la Hoya.

It also leaves a complete lack of clarity about how to become a Christian

I know you feel this keenly, but I must confess to thinking this a very bizarre complaint. It seems to me this be so in two ways.

First, by reading lots of little passages out of context and as legally as possible, you can come to the belief that what God wants from us isn't clear. But there is broad agreement across time and cultures as to the basic course, and also agreement that sincere seeking is both desired of you and liable to be answered. Christianity isn't rocket science.

Second, your family-history and the traditions that it involves may have set you up to fail here. Writing of your father:

"Worse than that, he tells me that the fact that I didn't get "the peace that passes all understanding", after praying for it for two decades, is my fault, not God's."

Googling around a bit I see a lot of Protestant preoccupation with "receiving" this "peace that passes understanding"--what we must do to "receive" it and so forth. It's a typical Protestant cul-de-sac, taking a verse out of context and making it into an idol of sorts. In context, reading Philippians like a letter and in "human-talk," it's clear that no such theological freight is intended.

I context, Paul is saying goodbye. He is winding up his letter, getting both more specific--mentioning a few people he knows--and a lot more general and even breezy. The latter consists of basic advice about anxietites--presumably both theological and practical. He says, "Do not be anxious about anything, but in all things, by prayer and giving with thanks, make your needs known to God, and then the peace of God, which bests all thinking, will guard your heart and mind in Christ." That such a simple expression of basic theology--pray openly and honestly and God will give you peace--would be turned into some sort of litmus test of faith... well, it's both idiotic and perverse.

I'm not particularly familiar with Protestant theology but I do know that many Protestants put great store in conversion experiences. Thus the Puritans required a specific, one-time "born again" experience to admit someone to full membership. Fine for them, I suppose, except that this sort of requirement is totally alien to Christian belief before the Reformation and to all non-Protestant thought after it. While the Church has always recognzied some people have such experiences, it was never a "requirement" and was indeed clearly understood to be a rare thing.

So much of your approach seems to come from this sort of thinking. I think it's fouling you up.

"The ordinary teaching Magisterium of the Church is infallible. IOW, the Pope has never made an ex cathedra declaration that Jesus was raised from the dead. But it is an infallible teaching. It is the continuous and unchanged teaching of the church and binding on the faithful de fide. The prohibition on contraception is also the ongoing and unchanging teaching of the church, based on the natural moral law. It is, therefore, infallible. . . .

This is typical Conservative nonsense. That Jesus was raised from the dead is an infallible teaching on dozens of grounds. The Pope never stood up and said it ex cathedra because it is a basic item of the Christian faith. It's infalibility was specifically asserted--against a dangerous contrary opinion--at the first Ecumenical Council, the Council of Nicaea. (The pope did not attend, but he agreed, apparently.) It, or the Apostles' Creed--which contains the same phrase--has been used continuously in all non-Protestant churches at virtually every mass for 2,000 years.

The prohibition on contraception is so utterly unlike the resurrection as to be laughable. Jesus never spoke on it. No creed ever listed it. No liturgy ever mentioned it. And no church council has ever propounded on the topic. On this, you will find Conservative Catholics insisting that they have. Here's a typical example:

"The Church teaches nothing new on the regulation of birth and the prohibition against artificial contraception (Council of Nicea, Canon 1)."

Apparently this reference is pasted about without anyone even bothering to look it up, or perhaps by people so craven in their need to find infallible doctrines that they can't read straight. The Canon reads:

"If any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such an one, if (already) enrolled among the clergy, should cease (from his ministry), and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who wilfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men the Canon admits to the clergy."

The context is clearly that some priests took "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" a bit far. Indeed, we have independent historical evidence that some Christians did castrate themselves precisely to avoid sin. Blech.

To resume the argument, I gather that since it's the infallible teaching of Nicaea that priests shouldn't maim, disfigure and abuse their body by hacking off their junk, except on sound medical advice, husbands and wives are forbidden from using rubbers. QED! Or rather, since no argument is required, an infallible teaching.

(Incidentally, canons like that aren't even considered to be infallible, dealing as they do with administrative questions of church organization, rather than faith and morals per se.)

(206) Noted, john.

I don't agree with some of what you post, but we still can discuss and 'get along', right? :)

(207) From my understanding, the three 'major' faiths/religions each claim to be "exclusive":

Jews are the Chosen People, others are heretics.

Muslims are followers of Allah and his prophet, Mohammed, others are dhimmi, and infidels.

Christians are God's children, and Jesus said that no one can get to God the Father and Heaven without going through Christ. Those who reject Christ will go to Hell.

>218 fuzzi: "Jews are the Chosen People, others are heretics."

Where did you get that?
Jews claim to be God's priestly people, set apart for a particular function. Non- Jews are "Gentiles." The term "heretic" appears to apply to internal competing streams of practice and teachings.

Infidel is a term used by both Islam and Christianity.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel

Christianity claims that we are all God's children. Whether we choose to acknowledge and accept the relationship is the question. Salvation theology ranges from exclusivist to universalist thought.
Christianity basically asserts that the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus Christ constitute the mechanism that provides redemption for all humanity and atonement for all sins.

(172) timspaulding I'll give you an example from a recent sermon at my church, in Portland. The story was that of Jesus and the Samaritan woman (one text). The Priest raised the notion that the passage was a troubling one—one that he dreaded coming round every few years. It made no sense. It made Jesus look bad, etc. He suggested that Jesus was "having a bad day." He then shifted the ground, did some rhetorical slight of hand and hand-waving and refocused attention away from Jesus and toward the faith of the woman alone. The sermon developed from there—the importance of faith, the importance of perseverance, etc.

There are many things in Scripture that don't conform to what we think or want to think...and that's to be expected if one believes that the Bible is the word of God (His thoughts are far above our thoughts, who can understand the mind of the Almighty?).

I don't see anything troubling about the passage: Jesus is not condoning adultery. The Pharisees are trying to trap Him, and of course He is aware of it.

They brought a woman, caught in the 'very act' of adultery. If that is so, where is the man? The law requires BOTH the man and the woman to be stoned, see Leviticus 20:10.

Jesus ignores them and writes upon the ground. What is written is not mentioned, but it has been suggested that the Lord is writing the part of the law that requires both adulterers to be stoned.

The Pharisees were breaking their own law in order to entrap Jesus into doing something that would either be against the law, or make Him look bad. His statement about those being without sin should cast the first stone pricked their consciences, and they left.

And then the Lord says "Go and sin no more".

Sin is not being promoted or condoned here, Jesus is just outsmarting those religious leaders who were trying to "get" Him.

As an FYI, the passage (from John 8:3-11) has been removed from some Bibles because it was considered too 'controversial' to teach.

God's mercy is controversial? Say it ain't so....

(219) 2wonderY "Christianity claims that we are all God's children. "

We are? Where does the Bible say that?

The Bible teaches that the Jews are the Chosen people, and that others are not. Jesus confirmed it: "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." John 4:22

and

"The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." Mark 7:26, 27

and

"And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." Matthew 15:22-26

The children are the Jews, the Chosen People of God.

The others, the Gentiles, are referred to as dogs.

I'm glad, however, that the Lord opened up salvation to even such a dead dog as I.

"Christianity claims that we are all God's children. "

We are? Where does the Bible say that?

I don't think it does, actually. Those who construct systematic theology out of biblical texts would point to John 1:12 (the right to become children of God) and I John 3:2 (now we {believers} are children of God).

Jesus may have thought a little differently: the parable of the Prodigal Son, for example, implies that repentant sinner returns to the one who is already his father.

From my understanding, the three 'major' faiths/religions each claim to be "exclusive":

Your understanding of Judaism isn't correct, as was pointed out. But neither is your understanding of Christianity. As common in America, and on LibraryThing, you've taken the opinion of a portion of Protestantism--which even all together would amount to only 36% of Christians--and applied it across the board.

Catholicism, to which them majority of Christians belong, holds that non-Christians can be saved, but that their salvation comes through Christ and the Church. Catholics make no statistical or dogmatic claims as to the salvation of anyone dead or alive, except the tiny number of Christians who are declared saints. To claim that one must be a Christian Catholic to be saved is Feeneyism, and is a heresy.

I don't see anything troubling about the passage: Jesus is not condoning adultery. The Pharisees are trying to trap Him, and of course He is aware of it.

My apologies. I slipped and it's caused you to respond at length. My apologies. It's the Canaanite-woman story. The situation is quite different. Samaritans are Jews, albeit questionable ones. The Canaanites are not.

As an FYI, the passage (from John 8:3-11) has been removed from some Bibles because it was considered too 'controversial' to teach.

For what it's worth, that's a rumor you've heard and is a distortion. The passage is removed or placed separately in various Bibles because it is missing from the oldest texts of John. Having looked into the issue for a previous discussion, my sense is that it is an early story but probably not part of John's original text.

> 216. (a). It's a typical Protestant cul-de-sac, . (b). I'm not particularly familiar with Protestant theology.

Statement (a) seems to imply considerable familiarity with protestant theology, whatever that is.

One of the many fascinating aspects of this entire thread (and the history of religious disputation in general) is the predilection of non-Christians to tell Christians what they (Christians) think, the predilection of Catholics to tell protestants what they (protestants) think, and the predilection of non-Catholic Christians to tell Catholics what they (Catholics) think.

The evidence for all this seems to be a mishmash of extrapolations from readings (and misreadings) of fragments of texts of various sorts, personal encounters with representatives of "them", hearsay testimony and argumentum ad verecundiam.

216

All this information is helpful and makes sense, and increases my understanding considerably. Just a few (not very coherent) remarks, which, while written in declarative sentences, reflect several questions which I find either difficult or unresolvable.

"(M)any Protestants put great store in conversion experiences. Thus the Puritans required a specific, one-time "born again" experience"

Not surprisingly, this is exactly what my former denomination (Southern Baptist) preached was sine qua non for salvation (except they didn't know enough Latin--or English--to say sine qua non). They did use the term "born again," which is said by My experience with it, as I've stated, was hellish. On pain of Hell, I would duly say the basic form-style prayer ("I'm a sinner, I believe you (Jesus) have saved me from my sins, da da da) and try to work my mind into the feeling that I was "saved" ("with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12.) Then I'd take the second necessary step and go down the aisle and profess my salvation and get baptized (by the preacher in a large tank of water), repeat the same process for many years. (I don't even have an estimate of how many times I was baptized.) I have long realized, of course that this is shockingly stupid. There were several variations on this, but they were all minor. It was all about being "saved", and I never could believe that I was. I have long realized, of course, that this is preposterous. But what I don't know is the correct alternative to gaining salvation.

This brings me to the topic of "salvation" (the result of conversion). I noticed many years later, when I read the (Protestant) Bible all the way through, that Jesus in the synoptics says precious little about being "saved" and having "salvation" in the theological sense. Usually, when he uses the term (soteria/sozo), it's almost always within the context of one's temporal life being "saved" physically from bodily disease or death. This physical use of the word sozo/soteria is quite consistent with its primary classical use, which means roughly the same thing. (An example occurs in Plato's Protagoras: Protagoras, in a myth about the early history of humanity, says (as I recall) that Prometheus provided us with the means to "the salvation (soteria) of our (terrestrial) life". However--and it's a big "however"--Jesus tends to say as a corollary of this physical kind of salvation such things as "Your sins are forgiven" (e.g., story of man let down into a house through a hole in the roof). (The case is similar with the word "faith/have faith" (pistis/pisteuo), as in "your faith has saved you; go in peace. Luke 7:50.) Thus, it seems that both physical and spiritual. However, I can't think of any instances in which Jesus grants spiritual salvation without physical salvation: the two seem, at least in some passages, inextricably linked. But the matter seems to me different in the case of Paul, as I recall: he often speaks of salvation as a conversion experience (and not just his own), and not usually in the case of physical healing. This fact seems to me to introduce a measure of confusion (although not an especially severe one), which derives from the implication that faith in Jesus yields spectacular results, which obviously aren't available to us now. But the accounts of both Jesus and Paul, as it seems to me, appear to have at least an aspect of "conversion" in them. And, notably, in Paul, "faith", whatever that is--is the supreme means of salvation, with little attention to physical healing (although the latter does appear). In the synoptics, I never could know that I had faith; that was my fundamental problem. However strange this disparity may be, though, it's still perfectly obvious that saying the form-prayer is far from the minds of both Jesus and Paul. But it seems unclear to some extent what they did mean by spiritual salvation (which seems almost to be Paul's only concern). Perhaps the most confusing and dreadful doctrines of Jesus and Paul is what has been called "election": the NT is full of it in an extremely obvious way, and is surely undeniable (and long before Calvin, who clearly didn't make it up out of whole cloth). All this seems to me, although it does involve (as any biblical interpretation inevitably does) taking texts from disparate books together, to be a correct observation of broad NT themes.

I have more on your #216, but have to stop here for now. If you can't say anything about this post, I understand that's because of its rambling nature (I haven't even proofread it). I'm just registering some more or less inchoate thoughts that came to mind as I read your post.

>224 jburlinson:

I'm afraid I'll stand by my assessment of Protestant cul-de-sacs. Sola scriptura has lead Protestants into a number of such pits, where a fragment of text is pulled out of context, treated like a stand-alone maxim and made to bear tremendous weight. Certainly all biblical interpretation has tended to do this—and Catholics have even gotten into it with non-biblical texts—but it is particularly prominent in Protestant theology.

>225 criels:

You account of repeated declarations and baptisms makes me cringe. My emotional response is that these churches are setting you up for failure. Some people may be emotionally prepped to have big emotional experiences in religion. (Some people are wired for it rather too much!) But most aren't set up that way. From my perspective you should have accepted that you were "in," and gone on to worry about other issues, like whether you were doing what you could to live as Christ wants us to. In general Catholics feel this way about Protestantism. On the plus side Protestants do stress a core, shared belief about Jesus as savoir. On the negative side it seems like too many Protestant services are preaching conversion to the converted and seeing every issue through that lens, and should get on to the somewhat less sexy but rather more consequent issue of what Christian life is all about.

>225 criels:, In my Protestant upbringing, I was baptised at 9-years-old. Around 14 I had what I'd call a rededication which led me to be re-baptised at 16. Years later, in my 30s, I joined the Episcopal Church where my priest offered baptism, but as the first two were done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (which at least at the time was important), the third time was entirely optional. I figured twice was good enough; any more and I felt I'd be taking the sacrement lightly.

The one thing I really resented as a teen and adult was the emphasis on cookie-cutter experiences some Christians expected. I never had a Road-to-Damascus conversion experience. For me it was slow and gradual. My mother was a Christian and saw to my church attendance and 12 years of christian education.

So, as an observer, criels, the first time you accepted Jesus (yes, very Protestant, but still it works) you became one. I sense that the peace you expected didn't happen because you had been given preconceived notions on what you should feel and what the experience entailed. How sad! I wonder how many others have been put off because of false expectations.

We're all unique and God meets us where we are. Read Romans 8. Picture a court room. The Accuser is describing in great detail and delight ALL the things you've done wrong (and yes, we're all guilty of something). And yet, God is the Judge and he sent his own Son who has paid your debt. Because of that God declares you not guilty.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”

31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

It was Romans 8 that finally gave me peace of mind... that and realizing that I'll never be perfect (except through Jesus) this side of heaven.

> 226. Sola scriptura has lead Protestants into a number of such pits.

Except for protestants who don't hold with Sola scriptura, e.g., Society of Friends, etc.

edited to get my italics under control

To passim, about things that confuse understanding of salvation:

I still see these as real difficulties that significantly complicate the matter. I don't see how they could be interpreted away:

1) Nobody in this thread, or in my former church--which tries implausibly to explain it away--has addressed the problem of "election," which inexorably confuses ad extrema the question about whether one is saved/ admitted to "the kingdom of God", or whatever (or even can be so saved or admitted). I can't see what this pervasive NT theme could amount to except that God chooses at his caprice (or through some imponderable means never vouchsafed to us; perhaps a vote of "the "sons of God" in Genesis?) who will and won't be awarded salvation. It would take a miraculous event of exegesis to convince me that this is not the correct explanation of so many references to "the elect." (I don't know much Augustine, but I've read that he endorses this view.) This idea is connected to such further texts as "broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go on that way; narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there are that find it.)

2) In a previous post, I cited the following text from Matthew 13:

"Then the disciples came and asked him, ‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’ He answered, ‘To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The reason I speak to them in parables is that “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.” With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says:
“You will indeed listen, but never understand,
and you will indeed look, but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes;
so that they might not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and understand with their heart and turn—
and I would heal them.”
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it." (NRSV)

This text immediately follows Jesus' parable about the sower and the seed. This parable is about how rare the "good soil" is that can receive the Word and yield a good crop. Thus, the parable about the sower and seed--which is itself obviously exclusivist--is followed by Jesus' clear pronouncement that the parables are intended to hide his meaning (an episode that occurs in all three synoptics) so that the "crowds" would not "understand and turn, and I would heal them." All this for the purpose of fulfilling a prophecy (no other comprehensible justification is given). To the disciples, on the contrary, "it is given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven;" thus, he unaccountably explains the parable to them. (One has to ask why the disciples should be chosen for this privilege, since Jesus repeatedly says that they don't understand the parables either.) To me, this is obscene, and I know of know way to interpret it so as to be innocuous.

But this isn't all. After this conversation with his special, arbitrarily chosen buddies, he goes on a first-rate parable-telling jag. First, there is the parable of the weeds of the field. (This is a corollary of the one about the seeds.) These will be "bound in bundles to be burned." Then, after the parable of the mustard seed, he favors his disciples with an exegesis of the "weeds of the field." Again we learn that the weeds are to be burned "at the end of the age, at which time the angels with will throw them (apparently equated with "all causes of sin and evildoers") "into the furnace of fire, were there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus is so fond of the idea of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" that he mentions it a couple more times along with other parables in chapter 13. I'm sure the burning is a metaphor of some kind, but I don't know exactly what. How are we supposed to interpret it correctly? What is the correct interpretation? How would we know (save for a church teaching on the matter)? Again, I see no way of interpreting it so as to be innocuous.

3) ref. #216:

"if any one in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such an one, if (already) enrolled among the clergy, should cease (from his ministry) . . . ."

I understand the point of this citation, and that it is an official church doctrine. But it seems to me that "doing the deed" (of self-castration or eye plucking, hand lopping etc.) is understandable not only in light of this passage but also in conjunction with the saying that "there are eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." No less a figure than Abelard seems to have taken such passages literally and thought that Jesus's teaching on this score was appropriate to his own case.

This brings me to a major problem about interpretation of the Bible: If Jesus meant such passages as "cut off your hand, pluck out your eye, etc. figuratively, HOW DID HE IN FACT MEAN THEM TO BE UNDERSTOOD? If they are metaphors, what do they represent (i.e. of what are they metaphors)? It seems to me that we're left without much biblical guidance on that crucial point. I consider this one of the grave defects of Christianity. Why wouldn't he do us the same favor as he capriciously did for the disciples and vouchsafe the intended meaning to us? I submit with confidence that even if such texts are metaphorical, whatever they do mean isn't savory. This is the kind of problem for which I never hear a plausible answer, if any answer at all.

227:

"14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”

"31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us."

I'm not picking on you; these verses were just an easy example that I didn't have to search around the thread to find. The point, which I've already made, is this, and it is a vital one: Participants in this thread have habitually and constantly taken more verses much more out of context than have I in my citations. Many of the citations I've seen from others are connected only in the most tenuous way--and in some instances not at all--to the point that they are alleged to support. And they take them at face value, in an extremely general manner, to support whatever pleasant doctrine they wish to endorse. Whereas my citations are undeniably directly relevant to the point I am making. The only difference is that others are citing verses to make pleasing points, and my citations reveal more sinister sides of the Bible and Christianity. But mine, as I said before, are given very little consideration and are constantly and summarily dismissed by one means or another. I know of no other difference than that my citations, if taken for what they seem to say, make the Bible and Christianity look less wholesome; and the citations of others are designed to defend and promote Christianity, in particular a kinder, gentler version of it. This is surely a blatant double standard. Can anyone explain why this is so? My quotations are just as much part of the Bible as are those cited by others, which are never picked on as "out of context", misinterpreted, too literal, or whatever other allegation comes to mind.

"From my perspective you should have accepted that you were "in," and gone on to worry about other issues, like whether you were doing what you could to live as Christ wants us to."

Yes, if one were going to be a Christian, this would surely be the most plausible approach. This has long seemed to me to be so. (Personally, I'm too far gone in my disbelief in and unfavorable assessment of Christianity to try it as this point.) But there are some profoundly problematic counter-considerations, some of which I have mentioned throughout this thread and in post 229. And my church emphasized the Pauline, or at least quasi-Pauline, emphasis that works must follow salvation, and works won't get us anywhere without that salvation.

~218

From my understanding, the three 'major' faiths/religions each claim to be "exclusive":

Jews are the Chosen People, others are heretics.
============================================

You need to do something about improving that understanding of yours. Right now you certainty sound like a prejudiced person who knows little and believes whatever is worst about views you have been trained out of your ignorance to dislike.

For instance, Jews are "the Chosen People" because they were intended to be a "Nation of Priests". Priests and the righteous are not the same thing. It is the role of Priests to act in a Priestly fashion and to guide others to righteousness.

Some minority contemporary fundamentalist Jews believe that Jews will be "the first among equals" at the resurrection. That is a strongly disfavored opinion, just as is the belief that being Jewish is enough to make one righteous is a strongly disfavored opinion. One of the things that rabbis tell prospective converts is that: "You sure that you really want to do this? You could slide by with much fewer duties if you simply live as a righteous gentile rather than taking on the yoke of Torah."

No Jew ever has believed that there will not be other Abrahamic believers who will not be among those with a "share in the world to come." That, of course, includes Muslims and Christians.

The term "heretic," incidentally, has no meaning in Judaism except for some minor breakoffs from Judaism such as the Karaites (who reject all of rabbinical Judaism and claim to be the descendents of the Sadducees) and the Samaritans (who reject all scriptures other than the Torah) - and there are few these days that would consider even the Karaites and Samaritans as "heretics." The crazy fundamentalist ultra-orthodox are, of course, an exception to that rule. Those nut cases believe than anyone who is not a follower of their rebbe or rosh yeshiva is a heretic, including all other rabbis.

> 209.

On the subject of Christian exclusiveness:

post #116: 1) "We know that we are God’s children, and that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols." (1 John 5: 19-21)

This is the first of the quotations that you use to demonstrate Christian exclusivity.

In order to extract a sense of exclusiveness from this passage, a person would have to read the word “we” each time it appears to mean “we and only we”. Perhaps that’s what the author of 1 John intended. There’s room for reasonable doubt, though.

Couldn’t we understand “we” to operate in the same sense as “We take these truths to be self evident …”? It’s unlikely that Jefferson meant that the American colonists were the only people on earth who professed certain principles of the enlightenment.

Frankly, I’d be more inclined to credit a more universalist understanding of “we” to the writer who, a little earlier in 1 John (3:7) says: “Children, do not be misled: anyone who does what is right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous.”

"From my perspective you should have accepted that you were "in," and gone on to worry about other issues, like whether you were doing what you could to live as Christ wants us to."

Another observation regarding this statement. I hate to be so difficult, but it doesn't seem to me obvious how Christ wants us to live. The synoptics, which are the only texts (except John, which is later and of a different character) that even purport to relate the preaching of Jesus himself, seem to indicate that such behavior would include not caring where our next meal is coming from or where we will live, "hating" and abandoning our families, evangelizing the whole world, healing the sick through faith, etc. (At least those are among the things he urged his disciples to do.) This is consistent with the fact that I've cited, which is fundamental to Jesus's entire message and also permeates the rest of the NT, that Jesus expected the temporal world order to be destroyed by the end of the first century. This, I think, explains why we need so much "interpretation" and "exegesis" of the Bible: because, as it stands, it is utterly alien, and in part appalling, to the facts, understandings, and sensibilities of our time. And Jesus is supposed to be the bearer of a message from God himself. The most credible conclusion of all this is surely that Christianity as a whole is patently false: many grave problems are at once resolved by this realization. Then we can get on with living in and with the world that we now occupy.

233

"We" is surely the Christian community; this is unmistakeable from the context: "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ" and is "born of God." (same chapter, vv. 1 and 18.) Pretty dang clear: all that's required to get it is to read the entire chapter. Christians considered themselves a "we" as opposed to a "they." And "the evil one", as goes without saying (I think), is the Devil. And what do you suppose "the world" is? Kosmos, which is translated "mankind" in NT usage by the standard Greek lexicon. And you state "Frankly, I’d be more inclined to credit a more universalist understanding of “we” to the writer who, a little earlier in 1 John (3:7) says: “Children, do not be misled: anyone who does what is right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous.” Who are the children? Certainly not everybody; they're members of the Christian community. The facts don't bear out your interpretations.

> 235. So I'm wrong?

criels, while I feel your pain I find it very difficult to understand where you are coming from. My own reading of the New Testament gives me an overwhelming sense of God's love and, despite some difficult passages, does not make me worry about salvation, "election" (a concept I had never even heard of until recently), hell or exclusivity. Maybe you and I are just very different characters, but I seem to be affirmed in my own interpretation by the Church in which I grew up and found a home (Catholic) as well as many of the other denominations with which I interact regularly in my ecumenical work. I'm quite shocked at your denomination's insistence on multiple baptism (>225 criels:), and I would agree with Tim (>226 timspalding:) that the big conversion experience is not the norm and certainly should never be used as a sort of litmus test of Christianity or salvation. I suspect your interpretation of the bible is still heavily influenced by that particular denomination which does not sound mainstream to me (although I accept that in the USA maybe it is considered mainstream). Maybe if you had been influenced by Episcopal, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox denominations, to name but a few, you would have a very different take on it.

johnthefireman: I suspect your interpretation of the bible is still heavily influenced by that particular denomination which does not sound mainstream to me (although I accept that in the USA maybe it is considered mainstream). Maybe if you had been influenced by Episcopal, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox denominations, to name but a few, you would have a very different take on it.

I agree.

(Bart Ehrman has a similar problem: having been raised a fundamentalist, when he discovered critical Biblical scholarship he threw the baby out with the bathwater.)

===

lawecon: Jews are "the Chosen People" because they were intended to be a "Nation of Priests". Priests and the righteous are not the same thing. It is the role of Priests to act in a Priestly fashion and to guide others to righteousness

This chimes very well with an inchoate line of thought I have been nurturing about Jesus's view of his mission as founder of the New Israel. Parables such as that of the salt and the yeast point to his intention that his followers should constitute a new Israel, a dispersed, underground, "priestly" spiritual movement, acknowledging and bringing about the kingdom of God but not attempting to convert everyone. (You can't make bread with just yeast, or live on pure salt.) His call to the disciples was not to baptise all people as "Christians", but merely to ensure that there were some baptised people everywhere: a kind of second Diaspora. Some would be called ("elect") to work for God's kingdom explicitly through faith in Christ, but the vast mass of people who were just getting on with their lives would be judged, as always, by their righteousness (or lack of it). Crucially, this would be reckoned by their adherence to what is good, rather than what is merely lawful under the Law, and certainly not by their enthusiasm in affirming Jesus as Lord.

Misunderstanding of this led the early church to worry about the "unsaved", especially the apparently virtuous who failed to respond to the gospel, and to formulate the theory of the "elect" which led to the doctrine of predestination, and the theory of salvation through faith alone which is castigated by the author of the Epistle of James.

I wonder if this model is in the current Pope's mind when he talks of preferring a leaner, smaller, purer Catholic Church. This would be indefensible if he really thought that eternal salvation hinged on Catholic Church membership, but makes sense in terms of the "New Israel" model.

236

How did you get that impression?

216

I am confused by the idea that the prohibition on contraception, surely being a statement on "morals" (as in "faith and morals"), is not infallible, and thus, by definition, is fallible. This just illustrates to me a much larger question about Catholic doctrine: if papal statements on faith and morals are not infallible, then what is their status? Are they just take-them-or-leave-them recommendations?

#240

I'd be interested to hear an authoritative answer on that.
However, my take, at this time in my life, is that Church pronouncements of this nature are to be taken very seriously. I am required to examine the subject with full attention to all of the reasons and arguments tendered by the hierarchy, and then examine my logic and conscience to determine whether I'd be sinning if I ignore it.

And my definition of sin is anything rendering harm to myself or others; both of which are offensive to God. I've found that if there is an element of selfishness in decision or action, it has some element of sinfulness to it.

238

(Bart Ehrman has a similar problem: having been raised a fundamentalist, when he discovered critical Biblical scholarship he threw the baby out with the bathwater.)

How much Ehrman have you read? You seem to have overlooked what Ehrman emphatically, explicitly, and repeatedly says in his popular books about this misunderstanding of his abandoning Christianity: he did not give up on Christianity because of his biblical scholarship. I have several of his books, and I'll give you many citations from him on this matter if you like. But all you have to do is read the beginning of any of those books. He continued being a Christian for quite some time after he had begun engaging in that study. He plainly says--again and again--that his reason for leaving Christianity was the problem of evil. He develops his position on this in his book God's Problem: how the Bible Fails to answer our most Important Question: Why We Suffer, which I strongly recommend that you (and every Christian) read.

>241 2wonderY: I am required to examine the subject with full attention to all of the reasons and arguments tendered by the hierarchy, and then examine my logic and conscience to determine whether I'd be sinning if I ignore it.

Precisely. Ultimately it is your own conscience, informed and guided by the Church.

And my definition of sin is anything rendering harm to myself or others; both of which are offensive to God.

I think that's a good summary. Rendering harm to self or others is the antithesis of "Love your neighbour as yourself".

237

"My own reading of the New Testament gives me an overwhelming sense of God's love and, despite some difficult passages, does not make me worry about salvation, "election" (a concept I had never even heard of until recently), hell or exclusivity."

There are more than "a few difficult passages". Most of the NT is fundamentally as I described it along with my citations. I'd say that your not worrying about such biblical matters has less to do with your reading of the Bible (which is not independent, but conditioned by your church, as you say yourself and consider a good thing) than with the fact that your church (apparently, judging from the similarity of your, Tim's, and others' comments) downplays or denies the harsh and fundamentally cruel aspects of the NT and the Bible as a whole. This is not so much due to any virtuous and beneficent character inherent in the church itself as to the radical changes in Western attitudes about morality and knowledge that we have inherited from the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment rejected the reigning Christianity for good reasons: it was superstitious and inhuman, as was obvious. The church had to react by making itself kinder and gentler than it had been in its history. If it were otherwise, almost nobody would be a Catholic (and in fact, the numbers of Catholics--or at least practicing ones--are dwindling. The numbers of those who don't even profess to be Catholics, or Christians of any kind, have increased greatly). It is the same with Protestants (whose history is far shorter than Catholics'), who have only relatively recently become "mainstream" (i.e. sanitized of the Bible's cruel and bizarre aspects). It is one thing for you and your co-relgionists not to be worried about the evil but manifest aspects of the Bible. The teachings, including the deplorable ones, that are actually present in the Bible are another. We know that many of your religious predecessors--who were taught by the same church that is so proud of its putative continuity--were very much worried about such terrible things. The fact that those aspects of the Bible are present remains (as I've said so many times). I'm not moved by the habitual dismissal of them as if they weren't there. This vitiation of the Bible is extremely popular: and that's what accounts for the overwhelming numbers of Christians with whom you work. Furthermore, since you are working for ecumenism, you are interacting with just those religionists who are most likely to ignore the worse parts of the Bible, so that they can minimize their differences with other churches. It's hard to make a tent full by means of an invitation that includes claims of Hell, election, etc. All this is the attempt to humanize Christianity, while in the past it has often been inhuman.

"Maybe if you had been influenced by Episcopal, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox denominations, to name but a few, you would have a very different take on it."

Maybe, but I doubt it. I was an inquisitive little whippersnapper, and I think I would probably have noticed the evil side of Christianity from the Bible if not from other sources, too. What about election, which permeates the NT. Why did God have to send himself to die an agonizing death for the sins of some people, but send most to Hell? The Resurrection; really? Etc. I doubt I would have taken these and many other doctrines seriously for very long. These are really incredible beliefs when you look at them objectively. Similarly, when I was young, I didn't simply believe and follow the teachings of my church. I was inclined to pay more attention to the kinds of passages that I have cited here than to ignore or implausibly explain away such passages, as even the Southern Baptists did. Even the Southern Baptists denied or suppressed texts about things like election, the confusing texts in the Bible regarding salvation and the possibility of losing salvation once one has gained it, etc. (They believed in what they called "eternal security, aka "once saved always saved", which is contradicted by parts of the Bible, and, taken seriously, surely leads to absurdities. E.g. "So now that I'm a saved eternally I can swindle people, refuse to help those in need, etc."?) They didn't like complications: they wanted everything about salvation to be extremely simple, to come down to saying a formulaic prayer and effortlessly having faith; but, in light of the Bible--the same one which they claimed to believe entirely--I saw that things weren't that simple. Baptists picked and chose disparate verses from disparate biblical books and strung them together to concoct what they called "the Plan of Salvation", which was supposed to be extremely tidy and simple. I knew that this was bogus. And I hope that philosophy--the secular kind I learned, anyway--would have drawn me away from Christianity if nothing else did. But, since it's a past counterfactual proposition, there's no way of knowing.

243

"Precisely. Ultimately it is your own conscience, informed and guided by the Church."

Why can't it be informed by fellow human beings--through conversation, books, whatever--who just want to live well? To my mind, religion is at best adventitious to that end, and at worst makes it more difficult.

>244 criels: I think you dismiss the world's major churches rather too lightly. A great deal of scholarship, prayer and pain went into modern biblical exegesis. You may not agree with it, but I don't think it was done just to pack the tents.

since you are working for ecumenism, you are interacting with just those religionists who are most likely to ignore the worse parts of the Bible, so that they can minimize their differences with other churches

Or with those who are trying to take seriously Jesus' wish that we should be One?

>245 criels: Why can't it be informed by fellow human beings--through conversation, books, whatever--who just want to live well?

Of course it is. It's informed by all sorts of influences within my whole life experience - in >243 John5918: I was just responding to a specific quote of yours. And religions are generally made up of "fellow human beings", past and present.

religion is at best adventitious to that end, and at worst makes it more difficult

No disagreement about the worst aspects of religion, but obviously I disagree with you that at best it is only "adventitious". I would rate it rather more positively than that.

Christ-ians are people who do their best to actually live according to their best understanding of Christian principles (love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.). Christians are people who belong to a faith that identifies itself as Christian, without any real regard to following principles that might interfere with what they truly wish to do. It is possible for a Christ-ian to be a member of a organized religion (many of them are), but it is not possible for a Christian to become a Christ-ian without making some serious changes to their life style.

I didn't write anything that was quoted in 243.

246

>245 criels: Why can't it be informed by fellow human beings--through conversation, books, whatever--who just want to live well?

Of course it is. It's informed by all sorts of influences within my whole life experience - in >243 John5918: I was just responding to a specific quote of yours. And religions are generally made up of "fellow human beings", past and present.

Of course, it was clear that I meant "fellow human beings" without any guidance from a god, not those in a religion. This can surely be done; and it can be done with reference to "life experience" with the world as it exists, without any reference to the will of a god. And that's what I recommend. I might add that in practice many self-professed Christians do the same, but attribute it to their religiousness.

> 239 & 235. 239 first -- Maybe I was just reading between the lines of 235. Or maybe I was reading the lines of 235. At any rate, I got the sense that you thought I was wrong. I'm just seeking clarity, like you.

235. "We" is surely the Christian community. Of course in 1 John "we" is the Christian community, just as in the Declaration of Independence "we" is the undersigned colonists. But my question is, in both cases, does "we" mean "we and only we"? In both cases, I believe the answer is no -- or at least the answer could be no. The probability is likely higher that Thomas Jefferson had a more universalist conception of "we" than the author of 1 John, but there's still a chance that the author of 1 John would have agreed that his "we" had application to a larger population than simply the Christian community. Or do you contend that there is no chance at all? Not the slightest doubt? This isn't a matter of "fact," since we can't query either Jefferson or the author of 1 John on the matter. It's a matter of construal.

"the evil one", as goes without saying (I think), is the Devil. I think the probabilities are on your side there. But what or who is the devil? Once again, we're getting into the realm of conjecture and interpretation.

And what do you suppose "the world" is? Kosmos, which is translated "mankind" in NT usage by the standard Greek lexicon. And yet every single English translation of the Bible that I have easy access to translates this word/phrase as "the whole world." (NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, KJB, ERV). I don't read Greek, but it seems that a consensus has formed around "the whole world." If you construe "the world" to mean "mankind", I guess that's one way to look at it. If I construe "the world" to mean "the material world", am I wrong? Is there only one possible way to understand "the whole world" with absolutely no ambiguity? (You can probably tell that my answer to that question, too, is no.)

The long and short of it is -- you read this passage as being exclusivist. I do not. I'm willing to accept that you might be correct, insofar as the original intent of the author of 1 John is concerned. You are likely not willing to accept that there's any chance at all that I might be correct. In other words, from your perspective, the author of 1 John is wrong because he's a Christian bigot. And I'm wrong because I hold out the possibility that he's not. Or am I wrong about that, too?

246:

"A great deal of scholarship, prayer and pain went into modern biblical exegesis."

And ingenuity. I'd never deny that there was pain involved: it couldn't have been easy to make the Bible look reasonable.

". . . I don't think it was done just to pack the tents."

I don't either, although what I wrote could be construed that way, and I should have been clearer. What I said in this connection (I hope) is just that ecumenists are *especially* likely to ignore the harsh features of the Bible.

As for exegesis, it originally arose primarily from the zeal of early evangelists to convert Greeks, who, with their long tradition of rational philosophy, found the Christian scriptures crude, incredible, and otherwise objectionable. The early "Church Fathers" were keenly aware of this and reacted to it. Abstract exegesis was necessary to make the Bible intellectually respectable and morally palatable to educated Greeks. On this point, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them is exceptionally informative and eye-opening. It relates the arguments of Greek and Roman intellectuals--largely on the basis of Christian scripture-- against Christianity, which had recently come to their notice. (Most such anti-Christian arguments, of course, did not survive the ancient world, since they were not dutifully copied by Christians as were many other Greek and Latin texts.) One Christian reflection on--and reaction to--this Greek intellectual attitude is that of Paul, whom it clearly vexed, at I Corinthians 1.18-25:

"For the message about the cross is *foolishness* to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the *wisdom of the wise*, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ . . . . Has not God made foolish the *wisdom of the world*? For since, in the wisdom of God, *the world did not know God through wisdom*, God decided, through the *foolishness* of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and *Greeks desire wisdom*, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and *foolishness to Gentiles*, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than *human wisdom*. . . ." This aggressively anti-intellectual attitude would not make much headway with intellectual Greeks and Romans. The essay "Christian Interpretation in the Pre-modern Era" in the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Third edition, Augmented version. describes the development of Christian biblical exegesis in view of this social context.

251:

"I got the sense that you thought I was wrong."

I was just a'kiddn. Of course you were wrong.

> 252. You're such a kidder. It's what makes you so loveable. So I was right that I was wrong -- that's good to know.

I'm deleting this because it was partially wrong, and I couldn't easily edit it to fix the problem

253

You bet'cha. I'm often told I have a great sense of humor. At any rate, I can make people laugh.

And yet every single English translation of the Bible that I have easy access to translates this word/phrase as "the whole world." (NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, KJB, ERV). I don't read Greek, but it seems that a consensus has formed around "the whole world."

Right, but here isn't much difference: under "world", Merriam Webster online says:

world Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: wrld, esp before pause or consonant -rld; wld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English weorld, world, from Old English weoruld, woruld, worold human existence, this world, age; akin to Old High German weralt, worolt age, world, Old Norse veröld; all from a prehistoric West Germanic-North Germanic compound whose first constituent is represented by Old English wer man and whose second constituent is akin to Old English yldo age, ald old -- more at VIRILE, OLD
1 a : the earthly state of human existence : this present life

2 a : the earth with all its inhabitants and all things upon it

It's absolutely true that when pre-Socratic philosophers, for example, are talking about the kosmos, they are thinking about the earth and universe as physical entities. But in other cases, it's clear that the reference is to "the world and its inhabitants", as the lexicon also says. Some passages wouldn't make sense if the reference to the kosmos were to the physical universe of the pre-Socratics. The Greek lexicon cites this as an example of the meaning "the known or inhabited world": "Your faith is proclaimed throughout the world." Romans 1:8 I tend to agree with the lexicon and other sources that this must include human beings. In Greek, words tend to have a basic meaning which shades over into other meanings by extension; thus, at the stage of development of the word kosmos when it meant "the world and its inhabitants" it began to shade over into "men in general/ mankind".

250

"the evil one", as goes without saying (I think), is the Devil. I think the probabilities are on your side there. But what or who is the devil? Once again, we're getting into the realm of conjecture and interpretation."

Here I think you're the one making things difficult, as I've been accused of doing before. The devil is the enemy of God and the tempter of mankind to sin. It's the Bible, not I, that gives us the Devil; so I'd suggest looking there for other information on him. Just as it isn't my part to describe a "good god", it isn't my part to make fine characteristics of the Devil, either. I don't believe in him. With a god like the Christian one, who needs the Devil, anyway?

250

"The long and short of it is -- you read this passage as being exclusivist. I do not. I'm willing to accept that you might be correct, insofar as the original intent of the author of 1 John is concerned. You are likely not willing to accept that there's any chance at all that I might be correct. In other words, from your perspective, the author of 1 John is wrong because he's a Christian bigot. And I'm wrong because I hold out the possibility that he's not. Or am I wrong about that, too?"

Wow. This is a bit rhetorically charged, don't you think? You're adopting the strident tone that I so markedly displayed earlier. I was clearly a bad influence. (I've been quite calm for some time now.)

As for the possibility that you might be correct: you might; it's just highly improbable. (I might be an angel, or a disembodied spirit, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.) It's just that the argument I've given and supported by concrete evidence is truer than the one you base on weak speculation in support of your pre-existing rejection of exclusiveness. If it seemed to me that the Bible weren't exclusivist, I swear I'd say so: Not being a Christian, I really don't have a dog in that race. I will say, in your favor, that there are in fact passages in the Bible that seem, and probably are, not exclusivist. But there are two points here: First, the majority of passages, and the overall tenor of the Bible, is in fact exclusivist, as I've been trying to show by evidence and reasonable argument. Second, the fact that the Bible contradicts itself about whether it is exclusivist indicates nothing but its confused, non-divine nature. This is one reason why I don't believe in Christianity: too many confusions about it, especially for a putatively divine book relating the message of the one true God, who surely could have done better at revealing his will. It's just all-too-human in character. I'm guilty of thinking that some interpretations are better than others: it is a matter of which interpretation is better supported by evidence and reason, and it's not a matter of which interpretation that we would like to be true. You are arguing on the basis of what you'd like, to your moral credit, to be true. It is a matter of construal, as you assert. But the value of a construal in terms of its truth depends on the factors that I've described; not on preference. Unlike all men, all construals are not created equal.

As for the author of 1 John's being a Christian bigot; I don't think that's the most revealing way of putting it, but if you mean by "bigot" one who thinks his religion is absolutely right and that others are wrong, and that only members of his religion are correct in sight of the one true god, then I suppose you could call him a bigot if you insist. I would say that the author of 1 John thought that he was preaching the absolutely correct word of God, and was sincere about it, but just wrong. Characterize that description as you will.

"If I construe "the world" to mean "the material world", am I wrong?"

The broadest answer is that it depends on what document containing the word you are attempting to construe. As I've shown above, in very many cases in Greek literature, you'd be quite right. When you are interpreting the passages I've cited, you would be mostly--although not absolutely--wrong. That meaning is part of the "thought-package" of the word kosmos. It is not, however, the *primary* meaning in the context of I John. Translation is not a matter of one-to-one correspondence of a foreign word with an English one. The "thought-packages" are too different to permit that. In this biblical text, the context here, along with the results of Greek philology, shows that it means *primarily*what I've reported.

235. "We" is surely the Christian community.

"Of course in 1 John "we" is the Christian community, just as in the Declaration of Independence "we" is the undersigned colonists. But my question is, in both cases, does "we" mean "we and only we"? In both cases, I believe the answer is no -- or at least the answer could be no. The probability is likely higher that Thomas Jefferson had a more universalist conception of "we" than the author of 1 John, but there's still a chance that the author of 1 John would have agreed that his "we" had application to a larger population than simply the Christian community. Or do you contend that there is no chance at all? Not the slightest doubt? This isn't a matter of "fact," since we can't query either Jefferson or the author of 1 John on the matter. It's a matter of construal."

As is usual in texts that employ the word "we", one has to consider the context in order to tell who the referents are. In the case of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, from which you quote a phrase (and which was not composed by Jefferson, who, as I recall, was in France at the time of the Constitutional Convention), at least seems to answer the question in its context, as follows:

"We the People *of the United States*, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, *do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.*"

There is no implication that the "We" means anyone other than "the People of the United States." No one outside the United States was "ordain(ing) and establishing the Constitution of the United States. You really aren't giving objective attention to how "we" is used; you interpret it before that.

"Thomas Jefferson had a more universalist conception of "we" than the author of 1 John. . ."

He may well have. And, given the quality of his thinking, we might even speculate that he did. But he didn't write the Constitution of the United States.

> 258. he didn't write the Constitution of the United States. I never said he did. Way back in # 233 I quoted a fragment from the Declaration of Independence, of which Jefferson was the principal author. (Actually, I mangled the quote disgracefully, by writing "we take these truths..." instead of the accurate and deathless "we hold these truths..." -- but let's not dwell on that.)

You're adopting the strident tone that I so markedly displayed earlier. It sounded so good when you did it, I thought I'd give it a try. How'd I do?

deleted because repeated in post #261

"It sounded so good when you did it, I thought I'd give it a try. How'd I do?

I think that would be an beneficial experiment, and might help you find your own personal prose style :)

How'd I do?

From a rhetorical standpoint, all things considered, I'd rate it a B-, with a strong potential for improvement. It is well to keep in mind the advice of Aristotle: consider your audience.

> 258. he didn't write the Constitution of the United States. I never said he did. Way back in # 233 I quoted a fragment from the Declaration of Independence, of which Jefferson was the principal author.

Right you are: I apologize for the misattribution.

259+243

I've now checked the Jefferson quotation in the Declaration, and, after a cursory look, I'd answer as follows: It is my immediate impression that the clause "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America," limits the application to the Representatives of the United States of America, though I'll check again and let you know in the case that I find I'm wrong. But here's where you may well be right: if presented with the Enlightenment ideals expressed in the Declaration, we can be pretty sure that many non-Americans would endorse it.

What a writer! "A peculiar felicity of expression", indeed.

>248 criels: I didn't write anything that was quoted in 243

>243 John5918: was a response to 2wonderY's post >241 2wonderY:, not to you, criels, but I overlooked that later in >246 John5918:. Apologies. But it doesn't affect the point being made.

233 and other related comments from jburlinson

Let me make an important clarification regarding the use of the word "we" in the Declaration of Independence. I should have been clearer about this earlier. You are mostly right in what you're trying to say about this. As you stated earlier, "It’s unlikely that Jefferson meant that the American colonists were the only people on earth who professed certain principles of the enlightenment." This is totally, absolutely, 100% true. No doubt about it. I neither had nor have any intention of denying this manifest truth. I just think you're making a slight technical mistake in how you put your point. As I think you said earlier, the *primary* referents of the "We" in the document are the Representatives of the United States: they are identifying themselves as the *authors and endorsers* of the contents of the document: in other words, they are the ones *writing*. The context of the document shows that the "we" are the "Representatives of the United States and only the "Representatives of the United States": they are the only persons writing or endorsing the document: a document that declares--very specifically--that the Colonies formerly ruled by Great Britain are now declaring that they will no longer be subject to that country. Thus, in this document has a very specific and limited referent. This in no way means that Jefferson declared that the Representatives of the United States are the only people that hold the Enlightenment views expressed in the the preface to the Declaration. It just that "we" here refers only to the author and the Representatives, who were speaking for themselves, in their own voice, as the subject of the sentence beginning with "we." of the statement. But Jefferson might well have meant "we" to designate himself and all those who espoused the ideals which he in fact expressed in the Declaration, if he were in a situation where this is what he meant. He would be the speaker, and, in this case, he would represent himself and many Europeans: the reference in this context would obviously be far more inclusive that it is in the context of the Declaration. I have little doubt--practically none--that he would have said, if he had been in the appropriate setting, "We" in the sense of I and all others who espouse the same ideals as those expressed in the Declaration. This does not change the fact that "we" in the Declaration is a very specific group: the endorsers of the Declaration of Independence. Does this make sense? Similarly, if someone said "We love playing baseball", and the context shows that he means something like "We (referring to the Kansas City Royals) love playing baseball", the "we" obviously refers strictly to the KC professional baseball team. But the speaker in this specific context would by no means be stating that nobody else in the world loves playing baseball. This is the mistake you're making in your claims about the word "we." I hope it's sufficiently clear and helpful.

237

I'm quite shocked at your denomination's insistence on multiple baptism (>225 criels:)

Although I think you probably understand this, I should clarify to make the idea more precise for everyone. I'll offer a little primer on the thinking of the Southern Baptists regarding baptism (insofar as I understand it; it was pretty confusing, and far from clear, to me). I know it's insane, but here it is as best I can discern and reconstruct it from my early experience, which is now a very long time ago. Southern Baptists don't advocate multiple baptism (of this I'm certain): they think one baptism per individual is all there should be. But here's the rub: baptism is totally ineffectual--and perhaps fraudulent (although my church didn't have, or know, any theology of baptism which clarified this matter)--if the person being baptized was not "saved" first. Thus, the prescribed procedure is salvation, *then* confirmation of salvation by baptism. Baptism was very important in demonstrating, for all to see, one's new allegiance to Christ. My problem--which was apparently an unusual one--was that I never could believe that I was saved, which was the be-all-and-end-all of Baptist doctrine, and salvation was the absolute prerequisite for baptism. But salvation was a very confusing matter, although it seemed clear enough for the simple-minded congregants. Sometimes when I was agonizing over whether I was saved, I'd be told to stop trying to have faith and just assume that God had already saved me--even though I thought and felt quite the opposite--and it wasn't up to me to work myself into faith. Thus, I was told to act as if I had faith even if I didn't. When I tried to do this--and thus apparently became a Christian--I offered myself for baptism, as was the required sequel. But I still couldn't believe I was saved--it seemed that God was requiring something impossible to me. So I went back to praying for salvation and thinking that I couldn't be right with God; and much in the Bible confirmed that it was hard to be saved. Again, when I had done my best--which wasn't much--to believe I was saved, I requested baptism again: hoping this time it would be a proper one. Repeat for many years. I don't recommend that you try it.

I'll add this to my religious profile: When I read William James's Varieties of Religious Experience, I learned his penetrating insights in the lecture on "The Sick Soul", which I recommend to everyone (along with the rest of the book). Everything he said about the "sick soul" was amazingly correct. I won't do his treatment an injustice by trying to summarize it: tolle, lege!

237:

"(. . . I accept that in the USA maybe it is considered mainstream)"

Especially when you consider the snake handlers and poison-drinkers who demonstrate their faith by careful adherence to Mark 16.17-18 (which is actually a later interpolation and was not in the original text of Mark). There are churches that actually do this!

>266 criels: Thanks, criels, for explaining the interplay between baptism and "being saved" in your denomination, something I wasn't aware of.

#266 is my new best post ever.

> 266

I was baptized by a herd of baptists when I was nine and today I am not "saved". So you are correct in asserting that baptism is just a ritual that bestows no "saving grace" on anyone.

I have heard of at least two people who have died during the process of baptism, so there is the possibility that one will be sacrificing one’s life just to carry on a traditional ritual. That would seem to be a total bummer.

266

I hoped it would be informative. Thank you for your interest. (I mean absolutely no sarcasm, in case there may be doubt.)

> 266 et seq. FYI. Standard Mormon practice is baptism for the dead. Since baptism is a requirement for attaining the celestial kingdom, everyone must be baptized, even people who lived before Joseph Smith restored the true priesthood. But that doesn't mean they have to be alive and on this earth when they are baptized. That would be illogical. They can, however, be baptized by proxy in the persons of people alive today who agree to undergo the rite on their behalf. This is why genealogy is so important in Mormonism. Through careful genealogical research (to verify the identity of all persons who have passed away) and assiduous application on the part of the faithful, the goal is to assure that all persons who have ever lived are baptized into the Mormon church. Not unnaturally, current LDS members tend to place priority on their own ancestors. But, ultimately, all human souls will be included. This project has been underway for many years, and will continue until the goal is reached. Often, the role of proxy is taken on by young people, adolescents. A primary qualification, of course, is that the proxy has been him/herself baptized and confirmed. Also, equally of course, they must be ritually pure enough to enter a Mormon temple where the rite is performed. As a teenager, I was baptized for several dozen people. This is often done in assembly line process and is so efficient and speedy, that I wasn't even able to keep track of the names of the various people I subbed for. One of the girls who went through the process when I did the last time swore she was able to see the long line of spirits we were all being baptized for, watching and expressing their gratitude & bliss. I can recall the clamor at the time among many people who wanted to be baptized for John F. Kennedy after he was assassinated. BTW, I was told by another girl I used to know that it was revealed to her in a dream that Kennedy accepted his baptism and confirmation within the first week after passing on.

So, no matter how many times you might have been baptized before, it's entirely possible, indeed probable, that it will happen to you at least one more time.

272 et passim:

Lucretius De rerum natura 2. 14

o miseras hominum mentis, o pectora caeca! ('O pitiful minds of human beings, o blind hearts!')

David Hume, The Natural History of Religion

"Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact, prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are any thing but sick men's dreams. . . ."

"No theological absurdities so glaring that they have not, sometimes, been embraced by men of the greatest and most cultivated understanding."

"So, no matter how many times you might have been baptized before, it's entirely possible, indeed probable, that it will happen to you at least one more time."

Well, at least I won't know about it. I hope.

(251) This aggressively anti-intellectual attitude would not make much headway with intellectual Greeks and Romans.

They'd probably think their own intellectual abilities surpassed the learning of that silly Pharisee Saul/Paul.

But isn't that just like 'man'? He tends to worship his own intellect and reject the 'foolish' things of God.

And so the word of God is revealed to babes, who accept it and don't try to second guess the Lord. :)

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Matthew 11:25

"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." Luke 10:21

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in his presence." (1 Corinthians 1:18-29)

:)

240:

"I'd be interested to hear an authoritative answer on that."

I'm still waiting, too. But even if we get an "authoritative answer", we shall still have to ask another question: Will it be fallible or infallible?

197

I wrote (among other things):

But Jehovah does repeatedly order the Israelites to exterminate whole nations, and leave nothing alive that breathes. Since God ordered these enormities, I think it's fair to hold him responsible for them. Therefore, the Israelites certainly were not " twist(ing) God's word to suit their own purposes and desires." They were following his direct orders, which he did not make optional.

You wrote in reply:

"As far as Jehovah's responsibility for his pronouncements in the books of Kings goes, within the context of those stories, sure -- he's responsible. But these books were written by people who were not writing factual history in anything like the modern sense. Nor were they writing about "real people" doing "real things." No more than Homer was writing about real people or real gods in the Iliad or the Odyssey."

These stories claim a status--a claim that is endorsed by Christians, including Catholics--that is far from that of ordinary, non-divine stories. Christianity, as well as Judaism, considers these stories divine and issuing directly from God. Thus, these stories are to be understood in very different ways from those that do not pretend to be from the one true god. They must be taken for more seriously than that, and readers should expect inestimably more from them than from ordinary stories. Here the one true god is speaking to humanity, a situation that warrants the greatest possible attention. The authors--or God--didn't mean these stories as literary amusement, or simply edifying, or as anything so relatively insignificant. (If they were for the purpose of edifying, they would fail abjectly.) They are included for real reasons essential to the Jewish, and now, as is claimed, to the Christian religion. These OT authors very earnestly thought they were illustrating for their nation God's inexorable, majestic, perfect, divine plan for themselves--and Christians agree!--and how it played out in history, whether those stories had a basis in real events or not (and some of them did, see parenthesis below). They were writing about how their god did wonderful and unique, and--needless to say--all righteous, things for them: and they took those wonderful things to include a lot of barbaric, indiscriminate, and unprovoked genocide directed by their god toward this end. And their god is, according to your own Church doctrines, your god, too. Thus, two ugly but essential and intractable facts emerge: The Israelites, God's chosen people (even according to Christians), attributed the most monstrous enormities to their God by way of explaining and extolling their national origin, development, prosperity, and destiny, with God as their author. And, (also according to Christians) what they wrote was just what God wanted them to write. (This is maintained explicitly by papal decree; see Paul VI's Dei verbum, to which Tim directed me). This entails, if one honors the text and church doctrine, that this is how God described himself. Clearly, then, these barbarities must rightly attributed to their god--if you believe in him--and yours, by both them and by us . These enormities cannot be plausibly mitigated, still less transformed into something wonderful and divine, no matter how much earnest, careful, prayerful exegesis is performed on them.

". . . within the context of those stories. . . ."

I'm generally confused when I read clauses like "within the context of those stories" or "insofar as the original intent of the author of 1 John is concerned," as if these qualifications inscrutably invalidated or defused the significance and import of what the author has written: And remember, what the author has written is what God determined that he should write, and where he determined it should be written. What is wrong with understanding biblical quotations in accordance with their context?: Quotations don't mean much--and are often notoriously misunderstood--when shorn of their contextual significance. (But in the unique case of biblical quotations, eliminating or at least mitigating their offensive aspects--and thus rendering them misleading--is the object of the interpretive work, regardless of the fact that the interpreters and their co-religionists do not understand it as such. I wonder: How often does the application of exegesis result in revealing that a biblical passage means something *more repugnant or more incredible* than it appears to the non-speciallst reader?) But you're recommending that passages by the author of I John (and others) declaring Christianity exclusive or OT writers describing God's prescribed massacres be taken out of context? What would be the value of that? I always heard that quotations were deceptive when taken *out of context*, not within it. And what other proper context is there for those disconcerting stories and doctrines but that of the biblical books of which they are an integral part? What is achieved by taking out of context passages like those that merely make the exclusive character of I John most explicit, or that illustrate how the Israelites (whose authors speak rightly for God, remember) exterminated nations in order to gain their "promised land" and the status of a "great nation"? That's how the Israelites conceived and understood those deplorable stories, and their function is to glorify their heroes of old and most of all to celebrate God's teleological, though murderous and capricious, design for them.

(By the way, I think it's been confirmed by archaeology that some OT stories, minus the miraculous parts and some of the details, did in fact occur--the authors are transmitting a national memory, in some cases no doubt dim, of actual historical events that they understood as showing God's favor to them, his chosen people. Incidentally, since we've mentioned Homer: it is certain that he was recalling dimly remembered events and conditions of Greek life in the distant Mycenaean Age that preceded him by hundreds of years. To take the most famous example: It is generally accepted by classical scholars that there is some historical reality in the story of the Trojan War reflected in the Homeric epics. All that without his text being considered the Word of God.)

>277 criels: But in the unique case of biblical quotations, eliminating or at least mitigating their offensive aspects--and thus rendering them misleading--is the object of the interpretive work

No, that is not the object of biblical exegesis; the object is to understand.

278

You're right: "object", which word you emphasize, makes the enterprise seem intentionally misleading, and I didn't mean that. I don't think exegetes are deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of the text; I just think that's what they in fact do, with no deceptive intentions involved. I meant to soften "object" by saying that that's not what the interpreters regard themselves as doing: they think they're doing something legitimate. But this isn't nearly clear enough. Thus, I probably should have said it's the "effect" of exegesis rather than its "object."

>279 criels: Thanks, criels. Of course I would still disagree with you that the result of biblical exegesis is misleading, or that its effect is mainly to soften "offensive" passages in the bible. I would argue that it gives us a better understanding; you would argue that it doesn't. Touche!

280

Just a note, with no particular implications: Southern Baptists have their seminaries and exegetes, too. I think they take themselves seriously. I've even seen a fundamentalist Baptist work titled Systematic Theology. I'm afraid I didn't read it. Maybe it makes sense of the Baptist doctrines: you know, the way Aquinas does for Catholics.

>281 criels: Of course. There are differing interpretations of scripture and theology in different denominations.

I just found this cute little epigram cited at the Catholic encyclopedia New Advent. It is cited as a critique of Protestant exegesis. I'm sure this is less true with Catholics, since their exegesis is regulated, and, if need be, censured, by the central organization.

Hic liber est in quo sua quærit dogmata quisque,
Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua

Which, being translated, goes something like this:

This is the book in which each looks for his own dogmas;
And each finds his own dogmas there, too!

>283 criels: And yet, if I remember correctly what I learned in my seminary days, modern biblical exegesis is largely built on the work of the great protestant scholars.

On 284:

". . .largely built on the work of the great Protestant scholars."

Yes, John, and specifically the interest in the Greek original of the New Testament was revived principally by Protestants. As a Latinist--Hellenist l who is of Catholic upbringing, Iʻve always been proud of "our" Erasmus -- an exception to the general absence of Catholics in the Greek Bible study movement.
Curiously, one of the differences between Catholic and Protestant is that some of the Greek nomenclature was retained
in the Catholic, and was Latinized in the Protestant:
"Apocalypse" (Cath.) > Revelation (Prot.);
"Paralipomena" (Cath. > "Chronicals (Prot.}. For all that, the contents of the two denominations Bibles are basically the same, the main difference being that
The Catholic has everything that the Protestant has
--PLUS.

For many years the R.C.C. imposed the death penalty - generally death by torture - for translating the bible from Latin into a common language, e.g., English.

Ah, the good old days. Things were simpler then.

Re #272, on the baptism of John F. Kennedy. I wouldn't suppose the RC Church, and, for that matter, the mainline Protestant churches, and the Anglican churches, would not take kindly to having this man baptized as if he were never given the rite. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit does it, once and for all.

Some nerve on the part of the Mormons to have so little respect.

Same goes for anyone who wants to baptize someone already baptized. Feh.

>286 JGL53: Indeed, it was the "Defender of the Faith" Henry VIII who didn't want a Bible in English. He just wanted control.

One thing that an unbiased reader might learn from this thread is that there is no "one thing" called Christianity, any more than there is "one thing" called Islam or Judaism or Buddhism. The adherents of each of those religions disagree over all but the most formalistic (and therefore empty) propositions of their respective religions. As instances of how they disagree:

(1) If you want to know what the religion teaches should you do your own interpretation of a holy text (albeit a text not read in the original language, derived from a variety of historical contexts, and compiled by mostly anonymous individuals) or ask for the judgment of a body of experts or established authorities?

(2) Does G_d's omniscience negate an individual human beings free will and choice? If not, how are the two compatible?

(3) Is a fetus human with all human rights from the moment of conception, grow in humaness and limited human rights as its viability increases, or obtain human rights only at birth?

(4) Are foreigners humans, with full human rights as a result of their status as children of G_d, or do they have rights only as a result of their official status with a human sovereign?

(5) Should states be run by ecclesiastical authorities, continually seek the advice of ecclesiastical authorities, appoint ecclesiastical authorities, or only recognize ecclesiastical authorities as independent leaders of one interest group in their societies?

(6) Is there an "after life"? If there is, can really bad things happen to you in the after life depending on how you've behaved in this life? Is affiliation with a Church or like institution or a particularistic confession of faith central to such desirable behavior? Is such affiliation or confession tied in with a consistent course of action during all or most of one's life or is it sufficient for it to occur on the eve of death?

Those are, of course, only instances. There are dozens of other examples if one gives it an hour or so to thinking about such matters.

> 277. And remember, what the author has written is what God determined that he should write, and where he determined it should be written.

You have made this point many times over the course of this thread, and yet we've not discussed what the nature of biblical inspiration might be.

There's a famous painting of Caravaggio that shows Matthew taking dictation from an angel hovering above his left shoulder. Is that how it works? Does the biblical author make a first draft and leave it under a rock for a certain period of time in order to let God take a blue pencil to it? Was every word of the Hebrew and the Greek the specific choice of God? Or should we consider the bible a collaboration between an assembly of human beings working with a Ghost Writer? If the latter, can the humans take any pride of authorship and, if so, for what?

Makes me think of Hillel, Nasi of the Jews from 30 B.C.E to 10 C.E.. When asked by a non-Jew to relate all the Torah had to say while standing on one foot, Hillel replied, "Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do until you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary."

Perhaps that's the entirety of God's contribution, the only "divinely inspired" part of the Bible -- "Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do until you". It applies to the NT as well, after all.

The rest is commentary.

> 289

1) If you want to know what the religion teaches should you do your own interpretation of a holy text (albeit a text not read in the original language, derived from a variety of historical contexts, and compiled by mostly anonymous individuals) or ask for the judgment of a body of experts or established authorities?

The former.

(2) Does G_d's omniscience negate an individual human beings free will and choice?

Yes.

If not, how are the two compatible?

They aren’t.

(3) Is a fetus human with all human rights from the moment of conception, grow in humaness and limited human rights as its viability increases, or obtain human rights only at birth?

As the secular law says - until changed.

(4) Are foreigners humans with human rights as a result of their status as children of G_d or do they have rights only as a result of their official status with a human sovereign?

Neither.

(5) Should states be run by ecclesiastical authorities, continually seek the advice of ecclesiastical authorities, appoint ecclesiastical authorities, or only recognize ecclesiastical authorities as independent leaders of one interest group in their societies?

The latter.

(6) Is there an "after life"?

It would seem not.

If there is, can really bad things happen to you in the after life depending on how you've behaved in this life?

Sounds rather insane.

Is affiliation with a Church or like institution or a particularistic confession of faith central to such desirable behavior?

I would guess not.

Is such affiliation or confession tied in with a consistent course of action during all or most of one's life or is it sufficient for it to occur on the eve of death?

In either case sounds rather insane.

>289 lawecon: The adherents of each of those religions disagree over all but the most formalistic (and therefore empty) propositions

You might want to explain how you equate "formalistic" with "empty".

"Love your neighbour" may be formalistic and may be widely agreed by religious adherents, but is certainly not empty.

> 277. And remember, what the author has written is what God determined that he should write, and where he determined it should be written.

"You have made this point many times over the course of this thread, and yet we've not discussed what the nature of biblical inspiration might be."

Once again, you're niggling, making things unnecessarily complicated so as to neutralize or eliminate passages you don't like. This is not an honest procedure. We shouldn't be telling the Bible what and what not to teach, and that's essentially what you do with appeals like this one about the precise, microscopic nature of "inspiration", as if some subtle nuance in the understanding of "inspiration" radically altered or eliminated passages in the Bible that reflect poorly on God. The Bible is held to be the perfectly reliable Word of God to us, whatever the ultra-precise nature of "inspiration" may be. We know well enough that inspiration putatively reveals the word of God reliably to us. Whatever the ultra-precise nature of "inspiration" may be, Christians in general and Catholics in particular hold that the Bible--all of it!--originates with God himself and tells us the truth about what God wanted human beings to know about him and how he interacts with them. And there is no way, no matter how obscure or insignificant one wishes to make the text, to make these unpleasant passages reflect well on God's character: they reflect evil, not good, no matter how much exegesis is applied to them. And they are part of the Bible as surely as is the Sermon on the Mount. The Bible isn't a religious smorgasbord from which you get to pick the items you like and decline the rest: Christian teaching holds that it all comes from God. You can't reasonably claim that, unlike the biblical doctrines you like, the parts that seem barbaric could not be from God in any meaningful way. You don't get to decide on your own what biblical texts are and are not meaningfully inspired and guaranteed truth: your church has already settled that matter. Catholic doctrine (as well as Christian doctrine in general) does not permit this sentiment-based approach to biblical interpretation: at least not in principle(!). What "nature of biblical inspiration" would redeem so many evil biblical stories and doctrines? Whatever "inspiration" is in the most precise, microscopic sense, it involves the idea that all of the Bible expresses God's nature and will. And it isn't credible that "inspiration" would lead to a precisely opposite sense from the most straightforward, obvious one.

And I repeat verbatim something important that I said earlier and that has not been addressed:

What about all the stuff about simple people being "blessed" (in a prayer by Jesus: "father I thnk you that you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to babes" or whatever the exact wording. The idea that the only people who can understand the Bible anything llke it's supposed to be understood are "the wise and learned" seems highly peculiar to me.

The NT repeatedly asserts that truth is inaccessible to "the wise and learned", etc. Yet what I keep seeing in this whole discussion about biblical understanding is that only persons with expert knowledge of exegesis can understand the Bible. Jesus says that the secrets of the kingdom are "revealed. . .unto babes." This seems clearly contradictory to me.

> The Bible isn't a religious smorgasbord from which you get to pick the items you like and decline the rest. Sure it is. I take what I like and what I find enriches my life. And I find it fun and sometimes illuminating to play with multiple readings of various passages. And if these passages contradict each other and create paradoxes, I find that delightful. Who's to stop me? Some of the parts that I didn't understand or find interesting as a child are the parts I like best now. Some of the parts that I understood well enough as a child and that actually appealed to my sense of adventure, derring-do and bad guys vs. good guys (some of the parts that you find so evil, I must admit) are parts that have small value to me now. It was certainly not difficult for me to understand a violent yet loving God, since I lived with human avatars in my own home. The chicken farmer who lived down the road beat his son with progressively potent tools (hand, fist, belt, board, iron rod), but cried like a baby and was heartbroken when the kid died.

Christian teaching holds that it all comes from God. Not in my church. In fact, I taught Sunday School for ten years and never taught anybody that.

You don't get to decide on your own what biblical texts are and are not meaningfully inspired and guaranteed truth. I certainly do. Who told you I didn't? Come on over to my house and we'll walk down the road to where my pastor lives and he'll be glad to tell us both that very thing.

And it isn't credible that "inspiration" would lead to a precisely opposite sense from the most straightforward, obvious one. Of course it would. A person doesn't need "inspiration" to grasp the most straightforward, obvious meaning. A person needs inspiration to get past the most straightforward, obvious sense. That's the really interesting sense anyway.

This might help you understand the Catholic doctrine regarding inspiration of scripture. It is from an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, quoted in the (Catholic) New Advent Encyclopedia:

The Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus" is most explicit in its statement of this prerogative of the Bible: "All the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."

This could be received in two ways. First, it could be taken to mean that the interpreter must acknowledge horrendous aspects of the Bible, and accept that they are statements from God and thus part of his faith. Second, it could mean that one has to assume before reading the biblical text that it is infallible, and, since it is infallible, cannot contain anything which seems to be evil or false. In the second meaning, of course, the claim for biblical infallibility is a rationale for using interpretation to purge the Bible of its offensiveness, on the idea that God couldn't say, in his infallible book, anything wrong. I recommend the first, honest, procedure, and deplore the second, dishonest one.

To 294:

Read 295. You will find it declared in the words of a pope that "Christian teaching holds that it all comes from God," just as I said. It's either the pope or you and those who share your pick-and-choose attitude.

295

"It was certainly not difficult for me to understand a violent yet loving God, since I lived with human avatars in my own home."

You were treated in your own home the way God treats people in the Bible? I doubt it; you'd probably be dead many times over.

First I don't know why someone would choose to start a topic like this here. Religion is one of those topics that people often argue about instead of really resolve when it is being discussed in this manner. In any case I just wanted to clarify something and then I'm going to shut up and mind my own business.

> 218 Fuzzi wrote

"Muslims are followers of Allah and his prophet, Mohammed, others are dhimmi, and infidels."

Correction:

Muslims are monotheistic followers of one God (and you can call Him God or Allah) and Mohammed being the "last" (and among many other) prophets and not the only prophet. Jesus; or "Issa" as Islamically called, is also considered a prophet to Muslims. The only difference is that Muslims believe he was human just like Mohammed, Moses, Noah...etc but was granted a divine miracle by God; therefore Muslims refuse assigning anything or anyone with the oneness of their God.

"infidel" is a very western instilled term you often find in tabloids. As far as I know Wikipedia isn't a legit source.

Good luck with your discussions.

295

"The chicken farmer who lived down the road beat his son with progressively potent tools (hand, fist, belt, board, iron rod), but cried like a baby and was heartbroken when the kid died."

Would you call that man a great father? It seems that you're saying that you think this is consistent with and reflective of God's behavior and attitude. Very, very strange from the common-sense standpoint, but consistent if you admire the work of God, for, according to his infallible Bible, he indeed does many things like that and worse.

You don't get to decide on your own what biblical texts are and are not meaningfully inspired and guaranteed truth. "I certainly do."

Well, of course you are able to do so in the 21st century under a secular government. However, you might find yourself the object of unwanted attention from the church if you held and taught that this is proper at a time when it was able to do something about it (i.e. anytime between the late 4th century to only a little before the dawn of the 20th century. You are lucky now. The church isn't gong to burn you or put you to the rack, etc.: if only because it no longer wields the power to do so. You're living at a favorable time for your theological caprices.

294:

"For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself." (Pope Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution Dei verbum) http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_...

> 297. You were treated in your own home the way God treats people in the Bible? I doubt it; you'd probably be dead many times over.

How odd that not only do you know what I think and believe better than I do, but now I find that you know my personal history better than I do as well. What color pajamas am I wearing?

> 299. It seems that you're saying that you think this is consistent with and reflective of God's behavior...

As I've been trying to say throughout this thread, things are not always what they seem.

You're living at a favorable time for your theological caprices.

You are so right, thank God!

> 300. I have the uneasy feeling that you believe all Christians are Catholics. Please say it ain't so!

>293 criels: Yet what I keep seeing in this whole discussion about biblical understanding is that only persons with expert knowledge of exegesis can understand the Bible

No, I don't think that's what's being said. The bible speaks to all, and to be honest most of the "ordinary" Christians I've met in most parts of the world are quite capable of holding it to be "true" and inspired by God but at the same time using their common sense and gut instinct to work out broadly which bits are supposed to be history, parables, poems, prayers, etc, and to see the overarching messages. But when one starts picking it to pieces in as literalist a fashion as you do here, criels (which most ordinary Christians don't), then it becomes important to raise the spectre of biblical exegesis.

>301 jburlinson: things are not always what they seem

Well said. Mystery. Paradox.

302:

Of course I don't believe that. I've made remarks and citations that are significant to Catholicism in particular because you and johnthefireman say you are Catholic, and some of your remarks have been explicitly based on what you take to be your Catholicism. And I've been addressing the two of you largely because you're the only persons significantly contributing; and Tim, who was participating earlier, also identified himself as Catholic. And some of what I've said has been either entirely or partially in response to his earlier comments. I hope this clears that up for you.

And I'm burned out on this whole business. I've said enough for you to ponder if you please.

And, in conclusion, enjoy your mysteries and paradoxes, as I'm sure you will continue to do. I'm no longer interested.

>305 criels: And haven't we also given you something to ponder if you please?

~292

"Formalistic" refers to such propositions as "you must believe upon the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for your sins, or you will suffer eternally in hell". What does "believe" imply? We don't know until questions of the sort that I've posted are answered.

~306

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

> 304. because you and johnthefireman say you are Catholic ...

Never said I was a Catholic. Am not a Catholic. Never have been. Probably never will.

Nothing wrong with being a Catholic, though. There are many appealing aspects of Catholicism.

> 306. I'm probably talking to someone who left the room. It won't be the first time. I wish you well. Behind the posturing (on both our parts -- it's nigh onto inevitable in internet exchanges of any length), I had a sense of a genuine person in trouble being there.

> 303. Very well said. The first part of your post is my primary takeaway from this entire thread. Thanks.

This might help you understand the Catholic doctrine regarding inspiration of scripture. It is from an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, quoted in the (Catholic) New Advent Encyclopedia

Providentissimus Deus was issued in 1893, and was part of the reactionary stage of Catholic biblical criticism. This stage ended with Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) and Dei Verbum, the latter a dogmatic constitution of an Ecumentical council, not an encyclical. You cited and apparently read Dei Verbum above.

Your use of a 100+ year-old encyclical, largely overturned a half-century ago, confirms something I've long noticed: Opponents of religion don't like modern, nuanced, scholarly religious understandings. They like their religion as fundamentalist as possible. You want "honest" and absolute procedures, not reasonable, partial and contingent ones. You may disagree on substance with fundamentalists, but it's a disagreement among people with the same desire to see the world in black and white.

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" is something of a problem. Because it was published in the 1912, it's out of copyright and was therefore free to put online. Because it got on early in internet-time and because no modern work has been put online, it's taken up this huge mind-share in Catholic searches and discussions. People like you cite it, without date, as if it were some sort of official Catholic position. Just imagine if some 1910 book about US Government was constantly cited as authoritative--a book that didn't include female suffrage, etc.

"Muslims are followers of Allah and his prophet, Mohammed, others are dhimmi, and infidels."

To add to the correction, "allah" is just the Arabic word for God. It's not a personal name. One can put it in the plural if you want to talk about Zeus and Athena. Arabic-speaking Christians use it in their services, as you would expect. Non-Arabic-speaking Muslims tend to use "Allah" because Islam has a special place in it for the Arabic language, and, I suspect, to set themselves apart from other monotheistic religions. That doesn't affect the core meaning whatsoever.

"Infidel" is, however, generally the translation of the Arabic term kafir, and isn't a made-up or western notion.

Thanks for all your inferior sophistry. Enjoy.

Oh, and evasiveness. Yes, especially evasiveness.

> 313, 314 Sophistry? Evasiveness? criels, a number of us here have tried to engage genuinely with you. I find your posts rather long and confusing, and I have not felt able to address everything you say, but where I have, I have responded sincerely. Of course I disagree with you, and your responses to my posts have not convinced me to change my opinion, but then surely that's not the aim of a conversation? I felt that an issue was being explored, from often opposing viewpoints, and that's a good thing. Your rather bitter end-note says more about you than it does about those who have tried to engage with you.

312:

I can't let this go without comment. I can well imagine how much smug satisfaction you derived from posting this. What it is, however, is rhetoric designed to make me look ridiculous while refusing to address the substance of what I've said. It goes over well with the viewing audience, since I'm unpopular here anyway. But the fact that I'm unpopular has little to do with the merits of my points, evidence, questions, and arguments. (In fact, most doctrines that are popular are less meritorious than are less popular but more insightful ones that are based on evidence rather than preference and emotion.) When I made statements, asked questions, and provided evidence for problems you couldn't conveniently answer, you simply said nothing. Then, when I finally said something you found you could use rhetorically to make me look silly, you jumped at the opportunity with alacrity.

Your suggestion that I attempted to conceal the age of "Providentissimus deus" by not citing its date is flat wrong; I had no intention whatever of doing so. I identified the source quite explicitly as Leo XIII, assuming that educated Catholics would know that Leo is not a recent pope; if they don't know that, it isn't my problem, but a problem of ignorance with Catholics who don't know who the recent popes are. I merely cited Leo's encyclical as another source, in addition to "Dei verbum", for your church's teaching on biblical interpretation. (And I also quoted Dei verbum--to which you directed me--as a source for the same topic; and I didn't see that the difference between the two quotations was radical. Your lambasting me for citing a "100+ year-old encyclical" brings into focus a general question that has occurred to me as I've read your posts: Why does your church have so much trouble making up its mind about how the Bible should be interpreted (as well as many other matters)? Why did your church have to "overturn" its position on biblical interpretation 4 times within a century (or at least issue 4 separate documents about it during that time?) I thought Catholicism prided itself on its continuity from Peter to the present; one might expect its doctrines to be more durable during a mere century out of almost 2000 years. And as for your statement that I cited "Catholic Encyclopedia. . .as if it were some sort of Catholic postition": I don't know how "people like me" rely on that publication, but I merely used it as the source of "Providentissimus deus"; I did not use the encyclopedia itself as support for any doctrine. (I did quote one elegiac couplet that was composed by a third party, who was a Protestant; I don't think that's relying on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" itself for Catholic doctrine.) I just saw that that publication reproduced that encyclical verbatim. So much for that false accusation. But if I had used an article from it as a source for Catholic doctrine, this would again raise the question about the evident (from you) ephemeral nature of the doctrines of the church which prides itself on its continuity. No wonder Catholics have so much trouble knowing, among other things, what doctrines and practices they are required to adopt, and which not, and for how long, etc.

It's Christianity, not I (I can't speak for "people like" me), that has always had an outrageously "black-and-white" understanding of the world; that is, until "people like you" came along and picked and chose and altered Catholic teaching according to their own whims. Consider these absolute polarities in terms of which Christianity, including your church, has, from the beginning, viewed reality: "light"/"darkness", "sheep"/"goats", "God"/"Devil", "good"/"evil", "light"/"darkness", "for us"/"against us", "the kingdom of God/the kingdom of this world", "is not condemned"/"is condemned already",etc. Certainly the inquisitions, among many other Catholic atrocities, lacked a very nuanced view of truth: and those were perpetrated by your church, which, as best I understand it, has always been providentially guided by your god (who is, or rather used to be, or was formerly claimed to be, always the same). But of course, you won't take this observation seriously, if only because it's "conservative"/fundamentalist. I don't know what you believe about your religion. I myself do not have any desire to see--nor do I in fact see--the world as "black and white", because it isn't, and I value truth; you have no warrant to say otherwise. I rejected Christianity because it saw the world as "black and white", and I didn't believe it was like that.

I specifically asked you some questions that you have not addressed, including (and I'm simply pasting these questions with no alterations or additions):

1) I am confused by the idea that the prohibition on contraception, surely being a statement on "morals" (as in "faith and morals"), is not infallible, and thus, by definition, is fallible. This just illustrates to me a much larger question about Catholic doctrine: if papal statements on faith and morals are not infallible, then what is their status? Are they just take-them-or-leave-them recommendations?

2) If Jesus meant such passages as "cut off your hand, pluck out your eye," etc. figuratively, HOW DID HE IN FACT MEAN THEM TO BE UNDERSTOOD? If they are metaphors, what do they represent (i.e. of what are they metaphors)? It seems to me that we're left without much biblical guidance on that crucial point, I consider this one of the grave defects of Christianity. Why wouldn't he do us the same favor as he capriciously did for the disciples and vouchsafe the intended meaning to us? I submit with confidence that even if such texts are metaphorical, whatever they do mean isn't savory. This is the kind of problem for which I never hear a plausible answer, if any answer at all. (end of quotations)

Of course you have said that only some of the Bible is correct; but this puts you in conflict with even the papal "dogmatic constitution" to which you referred me, and which I quoted to show that the Bible is true "in all its parts".

You haven't told me much about Catholicism. What you have taught me is that you unqualifiedly reject any teaching, whether from the Bible or from your church authorities, that you deem "conservative". If I quote from the Bible, what the Bible says is irrelevant, or doesn't mean anything like what it seems to say, or else I'm being simple-mindedly "literalist" about it: in comparison, of course, with your nuanced, intellectually advanced religious principles (whatever those principles may be; I haven't gotten any information from you on that matter); if I quote church-issued documents, I'm conservative/literalist. The words "conservative" and "literalist" are for you largely stand-ins for "false" or "absurd", or "simple-minded", and you seldom if ever say what is wrong with the features of the teachings themselves or why they don't count; it's just that if you call it conservative, it's wrong ipso facto, and has no application to you. What is the source of the idea that one should, or at least may, reject and ridicule "conservative" church doctrines? You are very cavalier about the teaching of the church to which you claim allegiance. I also find that you're awfully sensitive and hostle about having inconvenient (i.e. "conservative") aspects of your religion called to your notice. Where can I find a Catholic source for whatever doctrines and practices are true and important according to you? As I said before, your use of both the Bible and your church's teaching seems capricious.

> 316. If Jesus meant such passages as "cut off your hand, pluck out your eye," etc. figuratively, HOW DID HE IN FACT MEAN THEM TO BE UNDERSTOOD?

Uh, he meant them to be understood figuratively.

If they are metaphors, what do they represent (i.e. of what are they metaphors)?

If you look at women (or anyone else) lustfully, don't do that, even though it's difficult to overcome your lustful nature. If you raise your hand in wrath, don't do that, even though it's difficult to control your anger.

Are those metaphors so difficult?

Uh, he meant them to be understood figuratively.

Does not compute!

I apologise for lurking on this thread, but I do not have the time to follow it consistently. (Let me be clear that I am not a Roman Catholic and do not seek to defend its doctrines.)

#316 If Jesus meant such passages as "cut off your hand, pluck out your eye," etc. figuratively, HOW DID HE IN FACT MEAN THEM TO BE UNDERSTOOD? If they are metaphors, what do they represent (i.e. of what are they metaphors)? ... This is the kind of problem for which I never hear a plausible answer, if any answer at all.

We can't tell exactly what he meant -- he's not around to tell us, and his cultural and religious assumptions were rather alien -- but I'd go for: if there is some attachment in your life which is impeding the realization of your spiritual self, then let go of it*. Perhaps in your case (I might wildly surmise) it is the belief that faith is essentially a matter of assent to a coherent body of doctrines and/or conformity to the demands of church authorities.

(*This would, of course, not be an acceptable evangelical interpretation. Evangelical biblical faith is self-supporting: if the Bible says that you must accept scripture, then you have its authority on its own authority. But eclectic reinterpretation is no less justifiable: if any part of the bible can be interpreted more loosely, then why not the parts about scriptural authority?)

#316: It goes over well with the viewing audience, since I'm unpopular here anyway

What makes you think you are unpopular? Are you striving to be so? Some of your views are "unpopular" in the sense that they are shared by few or no other contributors: but this is the Christianity group, not the Pro and Con (Religion) group, so that's no real surprise.

Why does your church have so much trouble making up its mind about how the Bible should be interpreted?

I'm no Roman Catholic apologist, but I guess it is because the Church is struggling to reconcile the search for truth and respect for reason with the attempt to ground its own authority and affirm or validate the religious beliefs of previous generations of Catholics. Since the Enlightenment, and especially since the mid-19th century, the ground between the world views of present and former generations has shifted such a long way that this has become emphatically more difficult, especially for those who conceive of such things in formal and formulaic doctrinal terms. This search for consistency is driven by the institutional Church's inner core of lawyers, and ridiculed by an equally legalistic band of Protestants and atheists.

I want a rational reply and not just to be told vacuous and silly things. I'm really here to learn something... (#169)

But if the response of believers is based on a belief in God, or in the authority of Scripture, which you consider vacuous and silly (or morally reprehensible), then what do you hope to learn from them? Are you hoping against hope that someone will come up with a persuasive apologia for institutional Christianity?

"People like you" came along and picked and chose and altered Catholic teaching according to their own whims. (#316)

Why should they not? If Catholic teaching is essentially false, what does it matter to you if some Catholics reinterpret it to produce another body of essentially false beliefs? Why should Catholics respect Vatican teaching so slavishly: formal church documents, after all, are produced by and for the kind of people who think that formal church documents are important. But Leo XIII is not necessarily a more Catholic Catholic than, say, St John of the Cross. Judging Catholicism simply in terms of the pronouncements of its popes seems to me rather like judging America solely by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Certainly the inquisitions, among many other Catholic atrocities, lacked a very nuanced view of truth. (#316)

But you seem to reject any attempt to introduce nuances as "picking and choosing" according to "whims". Liberal Christians get very cross when atheists tell them that they ought to be more orthodox: they already get enough of that from the evangelicals, and some of them spent a long time and a lot of effort fighting their way out of an evangelical upbringing without dismissing the whole spiritual enterprise of which Christian faith is one manifestation. You may think they are misguided to cling to religion, but don't presume to tell them what they ought to believe if you don't believe it yourself.

I am confused by the idea that the prohibition on contraception, surely being a statement on "morals" (as in "faith and morals"), is not infallible, and thus, by definition, is fallible. This just illustrates to me a much larger question about Catholic doctrine: if papal statements on faith and morals are not infallible, then what is their status? Are they just take-them-or-leave-them recommendations?

No, they are believed to be right. But "authoritatively believed to be right" and "infallible" are not the same thing, as any scientist will tell you.

You came on board (#84) with two theses:

(a) from its inception to now, it has been very unclear what Christianity is;

(b) Christianity is exclusive. One cannot at the same time be a Christian and an adherent of any other religious doctrine.

On (a), many have agreed with you.

there is no such thing as "the Christian faith," solitary and unified (cjbanning, #113)

In my world, Christianity boils down to believing that there is a spiritual side to human life, and that Jesus Christ got something essentially right about it. Many Christians would (dis)agree, especially as it fails to assert the exclusivisim which many consider essential. I don't so consider it.

On (b), you said (#126) You can't read the biblical injunctions to Christian exclusivity out of the Bible because it's offensive to our post-Enlightenment moral sentiments.

Why not? We "read out" the implicit biblical acceptance of slavery, most now "read out" the incipient anti-Semitism, and many are attempting to "read out" the more explicit condemnation of homosexuality. Christians have been "reading out" various parts of biblical teaching for centuries. Only in evangelical Protestantism is religion so "bible-centred" that such "reading out" is considered suspect, and can only be done with layers of "bible-based" caveats.

Perhaps it could be said that there are two camps: those that consider Christianity to be exclusive, and those who do not. The first camp includes evangelical Christians, orthodox and traditionalist Catholics, other conservative Christians of all persuasions, and (almost certainly, I would acknowledge) all the authors of the New Testament documents. It also includes most militant atheists (who regard liberal religion as evasive), and at least some other believers (e.g., in my experience, some Theravadin Buddhists).

The assertions of this camp create an existential tension in the second camp, which includes all those liberal, syncretic, mystical, and other non-traditional Christians who would often be denied the label "Christian" by those in the first camp, along with some agnostics and other believers (e.g., in my experience, many Mahayana Buddhists). Does the label "Christian" have to be restricted to the exclusivists? If so, what do you call the others?

#126 all this upsets and angers people because they are brought up to regard the Bible as the divine, perfect, and without moral outrages

Not all Christians are so brought up. I think comments on this thread have made that clear.

All this, too, is a reason why I can't be a Christian: it's virtually--or totally--impossible to know what to do or believe if one is to be a Christian

OK, don't be one then. Stop worrying. It's not easy, but rather than banging your head against the church door and shouting, it's better to turn around and walk away down the path. If you still hanker after a spiritual framework for your life, try liberal Quakerism, Unitarian Universalism, or (my own practice) Zen.

318

I was hoping for a bit more detail, but very well. Are you going to address the rest of the post?

But wait: what does "does not compute" mean? Is that your answer for everything I wrote?

Can I copyright this thread?

322:

The parts you wrote, sure.

No, not everything. Everything will have to wait for another day. But it addresses one major aspect. Your crie de coeur:

If Jesus meant such passages as "cut off your hand, pluck out your eye," etc. figuratively, HOW DID HE IN FACT MEAN THEM TO BE UNDERSTOOD?

isn't wrong, or fallacious or anything of the kind. It's just silly. It's silly the way it would be silly for me to say that Nike's "Just do it" fails to properly specify what Nike demands of us, because we are no where instructed what to "do."

You want definite answers, fine. You may get them some day. But you won't get them by refusing to engage with texts—demanding they be a railway timetable or an algebra problem. Much the same weirdness can be seen in your insistence that nobody knows how to be a Christian, etc. It's just off. Atheist though you apparently are, your hermaneutics are sub-fundamentalist. Fundamentalists understand the books of the bible are written in human. You want them to be computer code.

>324 timspalding: a railway timetable

With my tongue firmly in my cheek, I hope that was intended as a compliment to railway timetables, Tim, otherwise another group of disaffected LTers might jump into this fray, namely the members of the the Librarything Railroad (The LTR) group...

>325 John5918:

Yes, I was thinking of you when I said that.

>326 timspalding: Actually I'm just about to head over to the Nairobi railway museum to help prepare a steam locomotive for a trip on Sunday. Makes a change from Sudanese justice and peace and LT religious debates...

>327 John5918:, I'm envious. Go steam!

(286) JGL53 wrote: For many years the R.C.C. imposed the death penalty - generally death by torture - for translating the bible from Latin into a common language, e.g., English.

Ah, the good old days. Things were simpler then.

Why did the RCC kill those who wanted to read the Scriptures for themselves?

It is written in the Bible that we should study the Scriptures, search the Scriptures and read the Scriptures, to learn of God.

So, making it a capital offense for translating God's word (so that the common man could understand) seems to contradict what the Scriptures teach.

Good point, btw.

(293) criels wrote: And I repeat verbatim something important that I said earlier and that has not been addressed:

What about all the stuff about simple people being "blessed" (in a prayer by Jesus: "father I thnk you that you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to babes" or whatever the exact wording. The idea that the only people who can understand the Bible anything llke it's supposed to be understood are "the wise and learned" seems highly peculiar to me.

The NT repeatedly asserts that truth is inaccessible to "the wise and learned", etc. Yet what I keep seeing in this whole discussion about biblical understanding is that only persons with expert knowledge of exegesis can understand the Bible. Jesus says that the secrets of the kingdom are "revealed. . .unto babes." This seems clearly contradictory to me.

I have to add here criels that, while you seem to deny the existence of God in your posts, you also address some very important issues.

Why, indeed, would Jesus teach that we should study and search the Scriptures, and learn of Him, if the Scriptures should then be made inaccessible by the religious "Christian" leaders?

In the Bible the religious "Pharisees, scribes and learned men" are often lambasted for their unbelief and their self-imposed blindness to God's truth. Those who come to God, as a little child, believing without having proof are those that are favored above those who hold their rituals above God's word.

The message of salvation is simple, but we make it difficult by trying to over analyze it, and forcing it fit our own desires and preconceived notions.

Thanks for posting, I have been enjoying your thoughts.

Criels seems to have disappeared. Apparently removed! While he (or she) went on at great length, laboring diligently on this thread, I didn't read anything that would warrant being removed by the powers that be.

>329 fuzzi: The R.C. Church forbade the Bible in the vernacular for reasons logical and not. 1) Everyone would then be able to interpret for themselves. We do see what has happened with that! 2) It would be hard to maintain control, keep the keys to the kingdom in the hands of the bishop of Rome. We see there, too, the results.

(332) And was it necessary to torture and kill people for either translating or reading the Bible in English instead of Latin?

It seems so 'over the top'. Sad.

Criels removed himself; it's a feature available to all. Nobody removed him.

> 333

I would think torture and murder are ALWAYS over the top, whatever the circumstance. Is that just me or can I get a big "Amen"?

But that is what happened for 1300 years or so in Europe, before christians imported the religious torture and mass murder to the new world.

Today (excepting Northern Ireland and parts of Africa) catholics, and christians in general, are little harmless lambs compared to the bad old days, when church and state were total suck-buddies.

It's them Mus-lems you have to watch out for nowadays - i.e., that 20 or 30 per cent or so of them that are crazy as bedbugs and will kill you and themselves if they think someone has insulted allah. But I don't think I'm spilling any beans - everyone here reads the daily news like I do, right?

before christians imported the religious torture and mass murder

Both were well established in the New World.

>333 fuzzi: Of course not. Did I imply that it did? History is full of all sorts of misdeeds, great and small, for all sorts of "reasons." I just listed what they thought were reasons; you asked.

Indeed, no less a personage than Sir Thomas More, a great intellectual, Renaissance humanist and a saint in the R.C. Church, is reputed to have been complicit in some executions. Go figure. Zeal can be dangerous.

The catholic church for over a thousand years burned untold numbers of people alive. Some victims had their intestines ripped out first which were then burned before them before the victims themselves were also burned.

But the catholic church doesn't do that anymore, so let's give them credit for morally evolving a good bit.

The catholic church's problem these days is the burning lust many hundreds of their priests have for thousands of little boys’ behinds and mouths. That is what they need to work on.

From what I read, many people, not just me, do not think the catholic church has done nearly enough. Can they ever do enough? I don't think so, but that's just me. I REALLY don't care for child molesters. That is just so SICK.

There are several posts among the last dozen or so that are intended to offend and which are, additionally, generally inaccurate. But no TOS violation. What does that tell you about TOS?

> 339

You mean like post #309?

Hell is other people.

~340

Yes, exactly like that.

We've been down this road before, haven't we? You are deliberately insulting. People are deliberately insulting back.

But I know you are a good Christian and would recommend "turning the other cheek." Right?

Rules are suppose to eliminate or at least reduce such behavior. But the rules in force in these Groups merely make the insults less direct, but still quite obvious.

>335 JGL53: excepting Northern Ireland and parts of Africa

Would you care to elaborate on your inclusion of "parts of Africa"?

And your exclusion of the United States?

> 344

I apologize for that. Of course the U.S. is crawling with christian crazies - many of whom are violent and crazy.

I mentioned Africa because of the Rwanda thing, wherein many catholics and catholic priests slaughtered an indefinitely large number of innocents, or at least facilitated their slaughter.

I understand when atheists rape and murder and molest children and commit holocaust. After all, they have no moral base. Plus, many of the most prominent of them are/were clearly psychotic - like a Medieval pope or something. All granted. (No doubt someone should keep an eye on Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking and me - and several tens of millions of other overeducated atheists - any of us could go off and start murdering at any moment.)

But why do christians stand out in all this? On average, they certainly have taken second place recently in the insane religious violence category behind muslims, but still...?

And the alleged fact that most christians are law abiding citizens - well, in comparison to whom are they outstanding in their law-abidingness? E.g., my own parents were racists. My father was a member of the KKK for many years. And a deacon in the southern baptist church. Was he some rarity like an albino with Down Syndrome and a cleft palate?

No. He was pretty much a regular guy.

For around here.

>345 JGL53: Ah, Rwanda again. We've had that before (several times). I think it was pointed out (several times) that in a country where 94% of the people are Catholic (or some similar percentage - I can't be bothered to look it up again) then it is hardly surprising that when crimes take place there are rather a lot of, er, Catholics involved.

Who says atheists have no moral base? I presume you don't believe that, so are you implying that Christians say it? Maybe you've failed to notice that most of the Christians posting in these LT threads have pointed out again and again that they (we) don't say it?

Thanks for your family history. Funnily enough I know quite a lot of people (and, again funnily enough, outside the rarefied atmosphere of LT anti-religious rants I prefer to think of people as people rather than labelling them "Christian" or "atheist") who are not racist and have never belonged to KKK, who are pretty upstanding law-abiding citizens, who strive to do good in the world, and who have some faults and failings like everybody.

> 345-6. re: the moral base of atheism.

It seems to me that the odd thing about the atheistic moral base is that it resembles so closely basic principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition, just minus the deity. Christianity with a haircut, so to speak.

> 347

Well, yeah, moral attitudes tend to be more about class, economics, ethnicity and many kinds of cultural influences. Middle-class white atheist Americans are pretty much like middle-class white non-atheist Americans in their basic morality and lifestyles.

I doubt if we would need to explain this to your average liberal christian. However we would be hard pressed to explain this to your average literalist christian, who still thinks atheism = communism = Nazism = Satanism = socialism = Darwinism = world-wide anti-christian conspiracy.

That's where the tough love comes in. At which I am an expert.

> 348. That's where the tough love comes in.

What's the point of the tough love? To make these people (the "average literalist christian") more enlightened? I don't see how that would make things any better. If they stopped believing in God, God knows what they'd do.

We had a neighbor a few years ago who was a strict Pentecostal. They were very good neighbors, in that they helped people out with stuff, and the husband mowed lawns for a few elderly people on the block.

He died suddenly of a heart attack or stroke, not sure which. The family went to pot. (Blackslid is the term.)

Now they were drinking til late at night, and once we had to call the police because the wife got into a vicious fight with my neighbor. '

Given the choice between having Pentecostals or blacksliders as neighbors, I will take the Pentecostals any day of the week.

350> Given the choice between having Pentecostals or blacksliders as neighbors, I will take the Pentecostals any day of the week.

Just a minute, bud, I've been a backslider several times in my life and no one ever had to call the cops on me. Don'tcha go givin' backsliders a bad name. Besides those Pentecostals rock out on Sunday morning with their guitars, drums and amplifiers... makes it hard for a backslider like me to sleep-in on a Sunday morning.

Okay, in all seriousness I work to judge people by what they do and not religion they do/don't claim. I'd rather live next door to a reasonable atheist than a crazy Christian... and the reverse.

None of us, that is, no 'group' of people, whether atheist or Pentecostal or Catholic or Wiccan etc., has a monopoly on either morality or evil deeds.

All people do wrong at some point or another. Some things we do appear to be 'worse' than others, but that doesn't make them okay to do, either.

I think each of us should look more at our self, and stop comparing our 'better' behavior against someone else's 'wrong' behavior.

A good example of this can be found in the Bible (Luke 18:10-14), where one man (a Pharisee) points out in his prayers to God how much better he is than another man (a publican). The publican just repents and asks God for mercy.

Who was forgiven? The man who didn't try to make himself look better by comparison to someone else, the man who admitted and repented of his faults.

Look in the mirror next time you think you're so much better than someone else.

~345

I understand when atheists rape and murder and molest children and commit holocaust. After all, they have no moral base. Plus, many of the most prominent of them are/were clearly psychotic - like a Medieval pope or something. All granted. (No doubt someone should keep an eye on Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking and me - and several tens of millions of other overeducated atheists - any of us could go off and start murdering at any moment.)
==============================

You know, this gets a little old. All states, to one extent or another, sponsor rape, murder, commit holocausts, etc. There have been only a small number of professed atheists regimes in history - e.g., the USSR and the PRC as prime examples. They did exactly that. Mao Tse Tung was the greatest mass murderer in the 20th Century or in any other century. The post-Mao biographies of him state that he had a bed full of teenage girls available for his use every night. Yes, he was clearly psychotic, just like Stalin was clearly psychotic.

===============================

my own parents were racists. My father was a member of the KKK for many years. And a deacon in the southern baptist church.

==============================

This explains a lot about what would be your otherwise inexplicable one sided blindness.

> 353

"...This explains a lot about what would be your otherwise inexplicable one sided blindness."

Ah, hmmmm. Would you care to elaborate and enlighten us all on any alleged meaning of this particular ad hominem, or shall it remain standing naked as the day it was born?

> 351

"...I work to judge people by what they do and not religion they do/don't claim. I'd rather live next door to a reasonable atheist than a crazy Christian... and the reverse."

Yeah, me too. But haven't you heard - under the "No True Scotsman Rule", if someone is crazy then they can't be a (true) christian. It's called winning by definition. Some of the posters on this thread are at expert level at this game.

I think the problem is that religion has as much to do with morality per se as my dog had to do with the Manhattan project.

How about - follow the Golden Rule, obey the law - or suffer the social and/or legal consequences - whether you are a christian, a muslim, a buddhist, a wiccan, a monist materialist, an Episcopalian, or whatever.

Don't even think of claiming that your own religion or secular ontology is somehow superior to others regarding ethics and morals. Let's have a complete separation of religion/ontology and morality.

I'm up for this. Anyone else?

>355 JGL53: Don't even think of claiming that your own religion or secular ontology is somehow superior to others regarding ethics and morals.

But I thought that's what you were claiming with all your attacks on religion? My apologies, I appear to have completely misunderstood you. It's nice to hear that you don't think your atheist ethics/morality are superior to religious ethics/morality.

~354

You shouldn't confuse ad hominems with descriptions.

It is difficult to read much of what you say without noticing that you seem to take your own narrow set of experiences and presume that they are typical of a large category of social phenomena. Let's take the example at hand of Christianity. As I tried to illustrate by a series of questions in a post above, what is called "Christianity" encompasses a very wise spectrum of beliefs and attitudes. What do Hicksite Quakers, for instance, share with your family's type of Baptism or with "Traditionalist Catholics"? Virtually nothing. What do "liberal Baptists" like Charles Kimball (a former official of the Southern Baptist Convention and a leading defender of Islam) share with the Baptist beliefs of your father? Very little. What traits did Torquemada and Francis Assisi share in common. None other than a pulse.

But for you Christians are all, apparently, a homogeneous mush of mass murderers, child molesters and whatever other bad behavior comes to mind.

OTOH, atheists are apparently rational, scientific, humane, and whatever other good traits come to mind.

This is an inaccurate and silly way to view the world. It is the sort of mental myopia better suited to a member of the Red Guard or Hitler Youth than to someone who would like to think of them self as rational and scientific.

> 357

Your characterization of me is false, misleading, utterly wrong and has nothing to do with reality. I have made it plain in many of my posts that I do not view all of those labeled X as all having trait Y. I have expressed many times, in this thread and in many others, my view that liberal christians and literalist bible-thumpers are two different kinds of “christians".

So, Sir, the following is not ad hominem, just an observation:

I perceive you are a poor reader - an EXTREMELY poor reader. That is a charitable view. If that is not the case then you are obviously disingenuous to an unacceptable degree regarding free and open argumentation.

- Thus I do not desire any further communication with you. I request that starting today you ignore my posts on this forum, as I assure you I will be ignoring yours.

Please go with god.

I have no intention of ignoring your posts in this Forum or any other. You choose to express yourself in public, you should expect to be answered when you express yourself in ridiculous ways in public.

(355) Don't even think of claiming that your own religion or secular ontology is somehow superior to others regarding ethics and morals.

The problem with this statement is that you are telling others how they are supposed to worship or how they are to follow their religion, how they are supposed to believe. You really don't have a say in how anyone else follows their own religion.

Why should someone have to hide their belief in God because it might offend someone? Why is prayer in public so frowned upon by those who don't pray?

And let's not get into the "What about those who believe in ...." using extreme examples of behavior exhibited by some individuals. It gets so tiring to hear the same canned arguments, repeated ad nauseam.

I don't tell you how to run your life, please don't tell me how I can or cannot worship my Lord, Jesus Christ. I promise I won't throw stones or burn you at the stake, okay?

Tolerance runs both ways, sir/ma'am.

>360 fuzzi: Tolerance runs both ways, sir/ma'am.

Ah, yes, toleration is a beautiful thing!

> 360 “The problem with this statement is that you are telling others how they are supposed to worship or how they are to follow their religion, how they are supposed to believe. You really don't have a say in how anyone else follows their own religion.

Why should someone have to hide their belief in God because it might offend someone? Why is prayer in public so frowned upon by those who don't pray?

And let's not get into the "What about those who believe in ...." using extreme examples of behavior exhibited by some individuals. It gets so tiring to hear the same canned arguments, repeated ad nauseam.

I don't tell you how to run your life, please don't tell me how I can or cannot worship my Lord, Jesus Christ. I promise I won't throw stones or burn you at the stake, okay? Tolerance runs both ways, sir/ma'am.”

1. You are entitled to your opinion. I never said any different.

2. I am not trying to tell anyone how they are supposed to do anything. If you reread my suggestions, you will see that they are indeed hypotheticals offered as suggestions.

3. I never said anyone need hide anything. Regarding prayer - public prayer ritual - like at a football game - is forcing religious ritual on to others that may very well be of another faith or non-religious. On public property such could be unconstitutional. In public on private property it could be considered a form of rudeness or not - depends. No one cares - or should care - about actual private individual prayer - that would be between you and the voice in your head. Not my problem.

Plus, why go off on this prayer tangent? - I don’t think I said anything about prayer one way or another in this thread.

4. If I give examples of immoral behavior by christians then what is the problem? I am merely demonstrating that, across the board, christians have a record of behavior comparable to all others, i.e., the superiority of christian morality is a lie. The evidence says so. So why are you speaking out against the truth? I thought all christians loved truth? Apparently some of them don’t love the truth - verifiable history - about christianity as a whole, if you are a good example.

5. The last sentence of your post takes the cake, or rather puts the icing on the cake. I.e., you seem to be into paranoia, scape-goating, and imagined victimization.

Hmmmm. You wouldn’t also happen to be a tea-partying republican, would you? LOL.

> 361 "Ah, yes, toleration is a beautiful thing!"

Isn't it? Too bad we can’t bottle it and pass it around like a fine Pinot Noir.

Funny thing though - the Jews in Germany tried tolerating the National Socialists back in the 20s and 30s.

That didn't seem to work out so well.

I think maybe if we do not tolerate intolerance that might be best. Just a theory.

Where is criels when you need him?

> 364

I ate him. Sautéed, with fava beans - and a nice Chianti.

I am not trying to tell anyone how they are supposed to do anything. If you reread my suggestions, you will see that they are indeed hypotheticals offered as suggestions.

Okay, let's see what you said:

Don't even think of claiming that your own religion or secular ontology is somehow superior to others regarding ethics and morals.

So I am not allowed to think of claiming that my faith might be superior in morality to some other faith or lack thereof?

That's you telling me what I can and can't think, as if you are some member of the 'Thought Police'. George Orwell was right.

What else am I not allowed to think, or claim to believe...perhaps that my God can lick the stuffing out of anyone else's god? :D

To tell someone that they are not allowed to think something is tantamount to telling them they cannot do something.

Why did I bring prayer into this? Because you appeared to be telling others how they can or cannot think/act based upon their faith. I am sure that just about everyone here is aware that people are not allowed to express their faith by praying in public. If you are of a different faith, and you want to pray at a graduation ceremony, I can either stand there quietly or I can leave.

If my faith includes praying out loud, who gives you or anyone else the right to tell me that I cannot pray except in private?

In essence, you are telling me how I should worship. That not only is wrong on a personal level, but it's also part of the Constitution of the United States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The law of the land says I can exercise my religion without prohibition. That includes praying out loud.

Toleration should be for all, not just those that have been chosen by the Powers That Be.

In regard to your final comment: The last sentence of your post takes the cake, or rather puts the icing on the cake. I.e., you seem to be into paranoia, scape-goating, and imagined victimization.

Hmmmm. You wouldn’t also happen to be a tea-partying republican, would you? LOL.

Was that necessary?

> 366

In reply here is the relevant part of my post # 355 which you partially quoted and thus distorted:

(JGL53 quote) "....I think the problem is that religion has as much to do with morality per se as my dog had to do with the Manhattan project.

How about - follow the Golden Rule, obey the law - or suffer the social and/or legal consequences - whether you are a christian, a muslim, a buddhist, a wiccan, a monist materialist, an Episcopalian, or whatever.

Don't even think of claiming that your own religion or secular ontology is somehow superior to others regarding ethics and morals. Let's have a complete separation of religion/ontology and morality.

I'm up for this. Anyone else? (End quote.)

So, then, it was clearly a hypothetical. I said "How about.." and then referenced everyone in the world, at least by proxy, including myself. (And, you know, I hardly ever take time to insult myself, BTW, as others seem quite up to the job.) Then I ended with the sentence "I'm up for this. Anyone else?..." - again, just to make sure everyone understood my post as a hypothetical - a suggestion to us ALL - including moi.

Thus, in context, anyone SHOULD have clearly understood that I was offering a global hypothetical - that we ALL should separate claims of moral superiority from our various person belief systems - regardless of what they may be.

For some reason you COMPLETELY misunderstood the actual thrust of my post.

I have absolutely no guess as why that is the case. I leave it to others to judge.

Have a nice day, fuzzi.

You too. :)

> 355, 367. Let's have a complete separation of religion/ontology and morality.

What does "religion/ontology" mean? Is this some reference to the ontological argument for God's existence? Or is religion somehow being equated with ontology? And how does one separate morality from ontology, which has to do with fundamental categories of being? Actually, a better question might be how morality relates to ontology at all -- or is there an ontological realm in which moral universals have existence?

Or did you mean "oncology"? And, if so, what did you mean by that?

I'm strongly against a complete separation of religion and morality. If religion isn't allowed to be informed by morality, then what's to keep it from going off the rails?

> 369

By ontology I mean one's personal theory of the nature of being - the personal conviction of a person regarding the nature of reality.

Materialists monists have one theory, dualists have another. In the west religion generally means assumption of a supernatural/natural dualism. Materialist monists are generally not thought of as "religious", by themselves or others. In the east a kind of monistic idealistic pantheism seems to prevail, notwithstanding the apparent superstitious polytheism of folk religions .

These are general statements - religions or religious philosophies like, e.g., Zoroastrianism or monistic idealism in the west are also present too and don't fall into the general categories.

Cutting to the chase - what I am just referring to is everybody, no matter what their personal theological convictions or philosophy of life.

>370 cjbanning:

Well, in terms of all people agreeing that morality is one thing and religion/ontology is another - that won't happen because that is something most people apparently don't even think is possible.

Many don't just think that their religion "informs" their moral precepts, they think it is the very basis of it - and thus all other (competing) religions or philosophies are suspect of being from the dark side.

As many historical and extant examples show, on all sides of the ledger, the religious or philosophical convictions of many lead them to commit atrocities. Such people don't view themselves as immoral, but point to their religion or philosophy as requiring them to act as they do, and thus their actions are always justified in their eyes. If you or I disagree, then they just additionally believe you or I are wrong, and since we are opposing the "true religion" or the "true secular philosophy" then our heads should be forfeit too. .

That is why I think morality/ethics should be regarded as a separate debate from religious/ontological debates.

But as I said most (like you) don't wish to go that route.

> Many don't just think that their religion "informs" their moral precepts....

You imply that religion "informing" morality is acceptable. Is that correct? If so, that's a far cry from a "complete separation."

> 372

No. I was referring to a statement in post # 370.

Plus the separation I would prefer refers to the debate. Obviously each individual is not going to be able to separate his or her moral personal precepts from his or her ontology.

It is just that the debate should be separate. Moral concepts should be their own pragmatic justification. And what Karl Marx or Ayn Rand said or wrote, or who believes in a personal god or who does not - we can debate all that without claiming monopoly on moral righteousness.

IOW, I am just tired of many most people insisting that their particular philosophy is the ground of morality, and using the No True Scotman fallacy plus the cherry-picking examples of immoral behavior of all who are the philosophical/metaphysical "other".

We go 'round and 'round on this and we get exactly nowhere.

Again, I refer all interested in the discussion to the last three paragraphs in my post #355. I am at a loss as how to better express my thoughts on this.

You know, in part I must apologize to you, and in part I must reiterate what I said before.

It appears, from rereading your posts, that you do distinguish between types of Christians. Good for you.

It also appears, however, that you think that atheists are per se "educated" and never given to horrendous crimes, but that "literalist Christians" (a term which remains undefined but which you rant about usually in association with mentions of your father) are stupid and probably dangerous.

For instance, we find above:

"I doubt if we would need to explain this to your average liberal christian. However we would be hard pressed to explain this to your average literalist christian, who still thinks atheism = communism = Nazism = Satanism = socialism = Darwinism = world-wide anti-christian conspiracy."

"I understand when atheists rape and murder and molest children and commit holocaust. After all, they have no moral base. Plus, many of the most prominent of them are/were clearly psychotic - like a Medieval pope or something. All granted. (No doubt someone should keep an eye on Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking and me - and several tens of millions of other overeducated atheists - any of us could go off and start murdering at any moment.)"

You know, it might be nice if you would follow what an ideal TOS would be like a bit more closely and talk about ideas rather than archtype "persons". Yes, I know, you can say extremely nasty things about Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc. under the existing TOS, and a great deal of the discussion in these Forums is exactly of that nature - trying to say something conclusory and nasty about THEM or even about particular persons without actually coming out and saying it. But sometimes it is nice to get down to the underlying ideas that one objects to, presuming that there are any such ideas.

For instance, you refer to the last several paragraphs of your post #355. O.K., why not take those and try to construct an argument that such are "all that is needed" to fulfill a certain human goal. Go ahead. Try it.

For Aristotle, morality arises from the virtues which in turn arise from the character of the individual. If I am understanding the separation of religion/morality argument rightly, that basically wipes out the Aristotelian approach, which, given the current state of ethics in philosophy, I think would be a classic mistake.

But then my ethics tend to be informed more by the Aristotelian than by the Platonic. After reading Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature I swore off metaphysics, and Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue and Jeffrey Stout's Ethics After Babel left a sour taste in my mouth for current ethics.

Gross over-generalization, but the study of ethics leads one to believe that their behavior does not matter, while the study of virtue (a la Aristotle) leads one to believe that ethics does not matter. I prefer the latter.

>375 Arctic-Stranger:, I recommend a couple of books that I really enjoyed:

Moral Clarity

A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues

Don't worry, they're not on metaphysics and enjoyable reads -- errh, at least for me.

> 376. Thanks for the recommendations. What a novel idea for an LT thread -- suggesting further reading!

The author of the second of your titles is André Comte-Sponville, who also wrote The Book of Atheist Spirituality, one of the few books on atheism I've read that gave me the impression that the author didn't have a huge chip on his shoulder.

> 377 "...one of the few books on atheism I've read that gave me the impression that the author didn't have a huge chip on his shoulder."

Well bless your heart, j.

And why should any atheist have a chip on his or her shoulder? Atheists are the most beloved people in America.

I don't know how many times have I had some non-atheist - almost always a fundamentalist christian - find out I am an atheist and, without knowing anything else about me, express love and concern for me as a fellow human being. Really, I know of no misunderstanding of, or insults directed at, atheists by religionists, especially the millions of American fundamentalist christians. Atheists are just being paranoid for NOTHING.

Atheists - WAKE UP and smell the love. All non-atheists, especially christians, would never even think of accusing you of evil beliefs and/or actions just because you are an atheist. That would just be SO wrong, and christians are smarter than that.

Christians only want to understand atheists. They would never engage in guilt by association concerning any atheist. They would never discriminate against atheists in any way. christians aren't like that. They are dedicated to expressing and reiterating the love of christ on all occasions.

And all those national scientific polls like Gallop showing the American public would vote for a Mormon or a Muslim - or just about anyone else - before they would vote for an atheist - I am sure there has just been some terrible mistake in tallying the vote. I mean, that can't be right, can it?

Even though I am an atheist, I do appreciate christian love when and where I can find it. In fact, this coming Sunday I think I will go down to the first baptist church here near me, sit down and then announce I am an atheist - then lay back and bask in the glow of all the christ-like love that will surely be directed toward me.

Yeah.

*just tripped on a chip*

> 379

Jews have chips on their shoulders regarding Nazis.

Blacks have chips on their shoulders regarding the KKK - and some considerable per cent of southern whites.

There's a lot of "chips" out there, 2. Better watch your step from now on.

>378 JGL53: All non-atheists, especially christians, would never even think of accusing you of evil beliefs and/or actions just because you are an atheist.

If you were to replace "All" with "The vast majority of" and maybe situate it outside the USA, then actually that statement is probably true.

And chips on shoulders that work their way into arguments are sooooo effective! EVERYONE should have one!

We're all just chips that pass in the night.

> 382

Chip chip-in-ey, chip chip-in-ey
Chip chip cher-ee!
2wonderY and jburlinson are as lucky, as lucky can be
Chip chip-in-ey, chip chip-in-ey
Chip chip cher-oo!
Good luck will rub off when I shakes 'ands with ye-oo.

Or blow me a kiss and that's lucky too

Now, as the ladder of life 'as been strung
You might think 2wonderY and jburlinson are on the bottommost rung
Though they spends their time in the ashes and smoke
In this 'ole wide world there's no 'appier blokes.

Chip chip-in-ey, chip chip-in-ey
Chip chip cher-ee!
When you're with 2wonderY and jburlinson you're in glad company
Nowhere is there a more 'appier crew
Than them wot sings, "Chip chip cher-ee, chip cher-oo!"
On the chip chip-in-ey, chip chip cher-ee, chip cher-oo!

It seems that, under some definitions, everyone might very well have, more or less, an apparent chip on his or her shoulder, including you AS.

You have opinions, right, even convictions? And they are many times in opposition to other people opinions? And you are willing to express those opinions?

Well, guess what - there could be a chip on your shoulder. Better check. Check twice.

LOL.

And, BTW, trying to deny that you have a chip on yours shoulder is just further proof that you in fact have a chip on your shoulder (see post # 379).

So don't try that, AS. I got your number, Chippy.

LOL.

> 384. Well, guess what - there could be a chip on your shoulder. Better check. Check twice.

Very Jesus-like sentiment. Matt. 7:5.

> 385

Well, I'm not Jesus. But I can see how you could get us confused. E.g., we're both hippies.

- Which brings us all full circle back to the OP.

~386

More and more I feel appreciative that you've apparently got me on "ignore." A conversation with you would be, in any case, an impossibility.

> 386. Which brings us all full circle back to the OP.

How so? The lowest common denominator of Christianity is being a hippie?

Been lurking a long time, and found this conversation both enlightening and interesting on the beliefs of other denominations, and also athiestic views. I can't claim to be a theologian of any sort and much of what was said was waaaayyy over my head, but I happen to agree with a certain Methodist:

"Think and let think."

"Do all you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can to all the people you can, as long as you ever can."

"Earn all you can, give all you can, save all you can."

"What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embraces."

--John Wesley

Bottom line on what is a Christian, the Apostle's Creed sums it up for me:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,28 the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
--United Methodist Book of Discipline

as well as James 2:26:

"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

Christianity is a delicate balancing act of faith, morals, good works and missions, Christian education (of self as well as others), asking for and giving forgiveness as needed, and evangelism. Too much emphasis on one above the others, or neglect of any, and you are not living as completely a Christian as you might.

Have I perfected myself in all of the above? Nope, but I keep trying. Am I forgiven when I mess up? Yup. Do I have an obligation to myself and my God to keep working on it? Of course I do. Christianity is not something end-goal that you do A B C, and bang you're There. It's a lifelong journey. And it's a pretty darn interesting one. So I'm always rather skeptical of Christians who seem to think they have all the answers. It's ok with me not to have all the answers--that's God's job, not mine. And when I get "aha" moments from time to time, it just increases my faith.

As to baptism, I figure if once was enough for Jesus, it ought to be sufficient for me. My mother had me baptised a Catholic as an infant, and the Methodist church feels no need to redo it, and neither do I.

Anyway, that's a United Methodist viewpoint on the matter. At least one Methodist's. You could ask another Methodist and might find another definition. We're funny that way, we Methodists. :)

(389) theexiledlibrarian, I like your post, very much.

One thing I have learned about faith in Christ, especially in the last few years, is that those who claim the mantle of "Christian" are individuals. They may all worship the same God, but in my experience, being born again does not require us to leave our personalities and characteristics at the door as we enter into God's grace and a personal relationship with Him. I never realized this until I made the decision to accept Christ's offer of salvation.

Thanks for your addition to this thread. :)

>389 theretiredlibrarian:
Yes, well said!

> 388

No. Just going back to the question of who is a christian - a TRUE christian - and who is not, or is only nominally a christian.

As to jesus being a hippie being the lowest common denominator, well I can cherry-pick as well as the next person, christian or atheist: Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Sounds like a hippie to me.

But I'm just a poor unsaved atheist. What do I know? I must needs take someone's word for who is or isn't a TRUE christian. theexiledlibrarian makes the case that United Methodists are the real deal. So I'll go with that.

The Apostle's Creed - I think there are other denominations who go that route so heaven may have even a few millions saints after the Final Battle and white throne judgment. Heck, maybe even a few tens of millions will make the cut. That's nice.

I myself am not into formulaic tests that cull out most of the herd. I'm going to stick with Brahman myself.

But I do find all this oh-so-serious stuff entertaining. I'd love to love my ego-self as much as many of you guys obviously do, but it just ain't happening.

Different stokes, huh?

> 392. I'd love to love my ego-self as much as many of you guys obviously do, but it just ain't happening.

I knew if we stayed with this thread long enough, someone would deliver the punchline. Thanks for supplying it.

> 393

No, the punch line is that you think you are an immortal, like in Dr. Who. LOL.

OTOH, I am able to understand that all humans are like all the individual members of the other species - when our individuals lives end, our individual lives actually end - just like it is obvious that they do.

I think I have pegged who's egocentric and narcissistic here and who is not.

But if you want to try and explain to us how, nevertheless, up is down and black is white and death is life and so forth, then go for it. What's the apropos bon mot for you? - oh, yeah - denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Double LOL.

> 394. If that hoary chestnut about "denial" can live forever, why can't I?

Triple LOL.

> 395

That hoary chestnut will die out given enough time, just like you will, j - unless hoary chestnuts are immortal - but I'm thinking there is no more good evidence of that than the fantasy that you are immortal.

All dualities are transient.

Look it up.

>394 JGL53: You're right, of course, that the Nile is not just a river in Egypt, as it is also to be found in Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Uganda.

> 396. There is excellent evidence of the immortality of this particular hoary chestnut. The Narmer Palette, which contains some of the earliest hieroglyphic inscriptions ever found, records a conversation between Iry-Hor and his grandfather, in which the former berates the latter for making mention of "denial", a joke considered unspeakably ancient even at that time (33 centuries BC). Note the eye-rolling of one of the principal figures of the palette.

> 398

That's just a load of Leg-Quail Chick (2) -Mouth (1)-Mouth (1)-Lake-Reed Leaf (1)-Loaf of Bread.

( http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptwriting.html )

I think the Catholic church has lost something with each successive split from it. Each schism and heresy has had a primary effect—removing the schismatics and heretics—and a secondary—constraining the legitimate diversity of Catholic opinion.

To add to the above: the original heresies still resound in the spiritual world in the many churches that were born and continue to be born. The Vatican holds onto power over its own, but how many American catholics--for example--really buy into the idea of a Pope in Rome whose ear is tuned to the Voice of God? With all the recent scandals and how the church has continued to look like it hasn't a clue how to deal with them, much doubt is cast upon the idea of it as the one true church.

I attend Mass. I pray on a daily basis. I believe that God's purpose can be found through scripture, and I accept the idea of salvation through Christ. But I can understand that people of faith come from many different viewpoints. And also how many outside of Christianity (and many inside) do not welcome organized religion.

I think there's much to what you say. Some splits have been like that, at least in part. The Chalcedonian split, for example, was not the removal of a true and unacceptable heresy, but a much more complicated mix of heresy, non-heretical opinion, chauvinism, tribalism and happenstance which history made a permanent break. Other splits were less so. Protestantism diminished the church in some ways, and narrowed the options, but Protestant ideas were in significant part not a splinter but a growth of a different--and to Catholic eyes, heretical--nature. And, in contrast to previous splits, Protestantism also forced Catholicism to renew itself internally.

As for the "ear... tuned to the voice of God," that's not an accurate description of what Catholics believe about the Pope. The special individual who, alone, has a "telephone" to God, is a creation of non-Catholic imagination.

pmackey,

I know your post was from July 5, but I just came across it today and thought I would give you, what I hope to be, encouragement with your predicament. You stated in an earlier post that you know you need to go back to church regularly, and that is an exemplary discovery. Please do not take what I say as preaching to you. I know nothing about you other than this post. My only goal is to possibly encourage you in a positive direction.

I am not sure of your background (whether you grew up in church, whether you are a Christian, etc.). Please fell free to fill me in with any other information. I must give you a little background in order to share with you what changed my thinking about church (attendance), God, etc.

I grew up going to church- my dad was an alcoholic and my mother "drug" me to church (thank God!). I lived an existence (until January 18, 1997). I say this because I was living, but my life seemed to be consistently lacking in something and I wasn't sure what. I guess growing up going to church I received something, because at this time I began to wonder whether my experience in life was all there was? I believed that there was more to life, but I certainly wasn't experiencing it. In my early twenties, life was all about me and what I wanted. But God would not allow me to have peace in my life. I struggled with these thoughts for several years. One concept that kept coming back to me was the concept of Hell. When I would think about Hell it scared me greatly. I did learn growing up that Hell was hotter than any thing that I could experience and more so, it was forever! This got my attention, because I often wondered what it would be like to burn for a very short period of time in a housefire (before being consumed by flames). However, God showed me that my pain and suffering in Hell would not end in a few minutes, a few hours, or even a few years- it would last forever, for eternity. This got my attention and it caused me to examine my life in light of God's Word. I realized several important truths as I searched God's Word. They were as follows: a). I realized that I was a sinner and that my sin had separated me from God (Romans 3:23); no matter how "good" I was in my eyes, I fell way below God's standard ("all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".) b). I realized I had to pay the penalty for my sin (Romans 6:23); the wage (or penalty) of my sin was death (separation from God). I will gladly go into more detail about how we inherited this sin from Adam if you don't know and you would request me to do so. The key is that someone must pay for sin (your sin and my sin, specifically). We will either pay for it ourselves by death (eternity separated from God in Hell) or allow someone else to pay our penalty of sin. c). I realized that God had sent someone, His Son Jesus Christ, to do that very thing- pay for my sins (Romans 5:8). "But God commendeth (showed, demonstrated) His love toward us, in that while we were yet (still) sinners, Christ died for us." However, many may realize that they need a Saviour and that God sent His Son to be that Saviour, but one must still go one step further in order to have a right relationship with God. d). I realized that if I called on God (through His Son, Jesus Christ), that He would save me. Romans 10:13 says that, "whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Calling on God to save you is acknowledging that you realize you are a sinner, that you realize you deserve death and Hell because of your sin, that you realize God sent a "sacrifice" (Jesus Christ) to pay your sin debt, and finally, trusting in Jesus Christ (by faith and repentance) to save you- which means that you are acknowledging that Jesus' death on the Cross 2,000 years ago was Him dying for you and that you are desirous and willing to repent of your sins and live for Him the rest of your life. According to Romans 10:13, the Bible guarantees that if you call in repentance and faith on Jesus Christ to save you, He will do just that. He did this for me January 18, 1997 at the age of 26 and He will do the same for you if you desire Him to.

As I said before, I do not know your past experience. I do not know whether you have ever fully trusted in Jesus Christ to save you and repented of your sins (which I believe are inseparable). If not, this is the very first step you must take in order to get into a right relationship with God. I believe that God is convicting you about going to church or returning to church because He desires you to get into (or back into a right relationship with Him).

I must say that if you had told me that I needed to go to church (or get back into church) before that day in 1997, I would have been like you now- I would not want to take the time to get up and go on Sunday mornings (or any other day for that matter). But when Jesus Christ saved me on that January day in 1997, He changed my heart and caused a desire in my heart for things of God (which included getting up and going to church). I must say even today, that I would rather sleep in on some Sunday mornings, but I know where I need to be and I want to worship the One who saved me and this is what motivates me to go on those days that I feel lazy and unmotivated. Usually, I must say that I want to go, because I want to learn more about Him and also because I enjoy fellowship with other like-minded Christians.

I hope I have helped or encouraged you with this message. Feel free to respond if you have any questions or comments. May God give you direction and help as you try to get in a right relationship with Him (and I know He will), because this is what He desires of all of us.

God bless you in your future.

Sincerely,

John (jntjesussaves)

madpoet,

I know that this post that I am referring to was written in July, but I just came across it today and as I was reading the posts- I felt it necessary to say, Amen! to you. I must say that this is probably the biggest issue of why you even asked the question, "who is a christian?" Unfortunately, so many never bother to read the Bible therefore they are not going to quote from it- they will just shower their arguments with their own ideas and feel pleased with themselves. The only place where this answer is going to be found is in God's Word.

By the way, I believe that what makes someone a Christian is if he/she has ever placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. In the book of Romans we are told that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)- we are sinners, "for the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)- our sin has separated us from a Holy God and we deserve death and Hell as a result, "but God commendeth His love toward us that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8)- Christ died in our place, and finally, "whosever calls upon the name of Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13)- if you call on Him in repentance and faith, you shall be saved.

This in and of itself in a nutshell is what makes a person a Christian. Also, which you are probably aware of- John 3 gives a clear picture of why we need to be saved (hence, why we need to be a Christian)- because we must be "born again." This all goes back to the garden of Eden and mankind's (Adam's) first transgression. Adam died spiritually in the garden when he disobeyed God and ate from the tree that God had specifically commanded him not to eat of (Genesis 2:16, 17). He died "spiritually" in the garden of Eden and his sin nature passed on to you and I and all mankind (Romans 5:12) which is the reason why John tells us that we "must be born again." We died with Adam spiritually (in a sense) and we must be made alive spiritually by trusting in Christ to save us (see above).

Great post, madpoet.

God bless,

John (jntjesussaves)

fuzzi,

I know I am responding to a post that you made several months ago, but I was recently reading this thread and came across your posts and wanted to tell you that you were making a lot of sense and if I had been posting on that particular day, I would have given you some "Amens." You had many good Biblical responses (which is the way it should be) and I am proud of the way you handled yourself. It was amazing how so many on this thread were referring to things that had absolutely nothing to do about Biblical salvation.

I think this is the reason why the road to eternal hell is wide, but the road to eternal life is narrow- so many do not believe the Bible and would rather tell you their ideas and feelings rather than scriptural evidence. Just thought I would give you some encouragement.

By the way, did you ever get to talk to "criels" one on one and help her with her struggle with salvation (or the lack thereof).

Take care and God bless,

John (jntjesussaves)

403: "By the way, I believe that what makes someone a Christian is if he/she has ever placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour."

That's an evangelical formula (and thus only a couple hundred years old). Are you really suggesting the millions (billions, really, especially when spread over two thousand years of history!) of Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, etc. who don't understand their relationship to Christ and their salvation in those terms aren't really Christian (as opposed to, say, being bad Christians, or wrong Christians, or mistaken Christians, or whatever)? You've thrown out most of the historical faith; after all, neither of the the standard Christian creeds includes the phrase "personal savior."

The Law wasn't given to me: I'm not an Israelite.

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

But I'm not a Christian because the phrase "personal savior" doesn't show up in my beliefs--the beliefs constitutive not only of my own baptismal covenant, but that of billions of believers across two millennia of history? Simply because I believe (with my church and the entire Church catholic) that Christ came down from heaven "for us and for our salvation" instead of "for me and my salvation"? Put aside for the moment the question of whether I'm saved, or whether I'm going to heaven or hell. I don't even get to belong to the religion that I think I do? (Despite being a communicant in good standing, not to mention a candidate for the priesthood, in my church.)

How many of the saints and apostles don't count as Christian under the evangelical definition? ("Sorry, Peter. You got 'Lord' and 'God' right, but really, how did you forget 'personal savior'? Now I'm going to have to go find some other rock upon which to establish my Church.")

Christ came for all, but only those who personally ask Him for salvation will be saved.

You cannot acquire salvation unless you PERSONALLY make the decision, your parents can't do it for you, your church members can't do it for you, and your priest/minister/preacher can't do it for you.

"But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:8, 9)

"Personal Saviour" isn't in the Bible, nor in the Nicene or Apostles' Creed, but the concept of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is found in the Bible.

>410 fuzzi:

I think, Fuzzi, we are objecting to a particularly modern, Protestant, Evangelical spin—the spin of a tiny minority of Christians today, and risible percentage throughout time—being foisted on longstanding Christian orthodoxy. For what it's worth, Catholics and others hold out hope that men might be saved who responded to Jesus without knowing they were doing so. Most evangelicals surely dismiss this notion, but there it is.

(407) But you are aware of the law, and what is right and what is not. All people, whether with or without the law, will be judged by what they have done or not done:

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; ...
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" (Romans 2:12, 14, 15)

>410 fuzzi:

I wrote a sermon on that particular verse you cite, so it makes sense for me to link to it right now.

It's nice to put a face with a moniker. :)

I actually posted these last three posts thinking that they would go to each individually privately, because they were from so long ago. However, since they showed up on the current thread (I now know how it works)- I will comment further.

405: I am no way standing in judgment of any particular person (you included). From my understanding of the Bible, it is clear in the need to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Call the relationship what you will, but I believe at some point in a individual's life he must realize his sinfulness, realize his need of a Saviour, turn from his sin turning to Christ (repentance), and call on Jesus Christ to save Him. If an individual does this I believe he/she has been born again. If an individual has not done this I believe that he/she is not born again and is in need of salvation. This is what I believe to be the Bible way of salvation; I understand that Catholics (from what I have read from their perspective and ones I have communicated with) seem to add works to salvation (sacraments, baptism, Catholic church membership, etc.). I just have a hard time with those of any denomination (including Independent Fundamental Baptist, of which I am a member) who add anything to salvation. I believe salvation is by grace through faith to those who believe and receive Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). When you add anything to salvation apart from the above, I believe an individual is saying that Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not enough- and that I can't accept. You seem firm in what you believe and I am not trying to convince you different, I am just saying this is what I believe. I will add that one day, you and me (along with every one on this post and every human being) will give an answer to why God should let them into heaven. There is only one acceptable answer I believe and that is if a person has followed Paul's admonition in Ephesians 2:8-9 (accepted God's free gift of salvation by faith). All of us will one day either enter heaven or hell based on what we believe (or have believed) and we cannot all be right. Romans 11:6 states, "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." While this scripture deals with the nation of Israel, it also deals with Christians in general- because God does not change. Also, Galatians 3:16 reads, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law: for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." I only share these thoughts because I believe so strongly that my interpretation of God's Word is correct. I believe your works will follow if you are a Chrisitan, but you do not work to become or stay a Christian (this is only by the grace of God). Please take this in the way it was sent, in love and truth.

406: You make some very interesting points. I also believe that a person must realize they have broken God's law and sinned against Him. I believe that this will probably send more people to Hell, because they never came to the point in their life when they realized their sinfulness, and therefore, realized they need a Saviour. The only thing you said that I have trouble with is your statement, "Jesus' message changed from grace to righteousness by works." Please see the above Bible citations. Jesus never changed His message- His message has always been by faith. The Bible gives a clear answer to why the law was given in Galatians 3; please especially read Galatians 3:24-25 which states, "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." God gave the law to the Jews and to the Gentiles to show them that they could not keep the law and that they needed a Saviour to get them back in a right relationship with God after Adam's fall in the Garden. This is what I believe the Bible teaches, if you believe the law is needed- we must disagree.

410, 412: Amen!

>415 jntjesussaves:

I disagree with your soteriology, and might explain why I think it is wrong later. For now, I'll just point out that this thread isn't actually about how to become saved but about who is or isn't Christian.

> 415. I am no way standing in judgment of any particular person and I believe that this will probably send more people to Hell

How do you reconcile these two statements?

416: Ok; If salvation is the process by which someone becomes a Christian, then how is this thread not about "how to become saved?" I guess you can label a person a Christian in one of two ways: a). someone who calls themself one for a wide range of reasons (Christian family, born into the faith, baptism, being a good person, living a good life, keeping the Ten Commandments, etc.) or b). someone who has put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ to do for them what they could not do for themselves, produce salvation. Now, myself, I am in the latter group. If you are saying that someone is a Christian who hasn't placed the faith and trust in Jesus Christ to save them, then I would disagree with your assumption.

417: I reconcile these two statements by the following: "I am not way standing in judgment of any particular person": for instance, I haven't labeled anyone in this thread a Christian or not, because I cannot see your heart," therefore, I am not standing in judgment to any of you- God is your judge! "I believe that this will probably send more people to Hell." I am making an opinion based on my experience and judgment; what is your interpretation of Matthew 7:13-23. Interestingly enough, Jesus begins this portion of scripture by speaking about the gate being narrow and difficult that leads to life and the gate being broad that leads to destruction. He then continues into telling His followers that they will know men by their fruit- do they bear good fruit or bad fruit. In order for Christians to know who to beware of, we must inspect the "fruit" (if you will of others). In verse 18 Jesus says, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit." How are you to tell what fruit someone bears without judging (I would rather consider it discernment) other's fruit? He continues by telling those listening that many will come to Him who are religious (and many who have done many things in His name), but His response will be- "I never knew you; depart from Me." I will not try and run from the moniker of "you are not suppose to judge others" (as so many claim), because we have been given a responsibility to judge (discern) other's actions. If you don't agree with me on this, are you not judging me (because you think I am incorrect)? Just wondering.

> 418. I am not standing in judgment to any of you- God is your judge! and we have been given a responsibility to judge (discern) other's actions. If you don't agree with me on this, are you not judging me

Actually, you seem to be disagreeing with yourself.

>415 jntjesussaves: "Faith alone" or "faith and works" is, of course, a well-worn debate in which Christians disagree. Do you have any comment on Matthew 25:31-46? I was hungry and you gave me food...

>418 jntjesussaves: One of the reasons why this thread is 400+ posts long is precisely because people have different understandings of what it means to be a Christian. You're perfectly entitled to your view that it means (b), and thanks for posting it. But others have simply pointed out to you that the majority of Christians historically and numerically have probably tended towards variants of (a).

You're not actually judging/discerning the "fruits" of anyone who has posted here because you're not in a position to do so. You have no idea who they are, how they live their lives, how they respond to God's call, etc. You appear to be judging them simply on the basis that their interpretation of the bible differs from yours.

~407

Thank G-d for small favors.

If someone who claims to be a Christian acts in a rude manner, then I could say that their "fruits" don't prove their supposed faith.

Anyone who claims to be a Christian can have a bad day, or perhaps be going through some hard times and is slipping in their interactions with others, but overall, if someone displays no kindness, love, etc, then they probably are NOT a Christian, as defined by the Scriptures.

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:34-35)

>422 fuzzi: That's true to some extent in general terms, fuzzi. But do you think any of the recent posts since, say, >402 jntjesussaves: have been rude?

But your contention that someone who acts in a certain way is probably not a Christian interests me, as you appear to be agreeing that "works" are important, ie it is more than just claiming Christ as personal saviour.

Christ came for all, but only those who personally ask Him for salvation will be saved.
========================

Fuzzi, I am curious about how you handle one of the traditional problems with this doctrine. Obviously, there were many millions of people who lived before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. After his birth for centuries, and perhaps even today, there have been billions of people who are born, live for awhile and die without "hearing his message" (whichever of the several messages you've repeated in this forum that may be). So what about them? Does an unjust G-d simply consign them to Hell fire for no good reason?

"But you are aware of the law, and what is right and what is not. All people, whether with or without the law, will be judged by what they have done or not done"

I am also confused about this Fuzzi. No Jew has ever believed that the Law was given to or is binding upon Gentiles. That is one of Paul's main themes - that Gentile Christian converts were in no way required to become Jews or to abide by the Law.

Now you present a mangled summary of several nonsequential verses from Paul's letter to the Romans. But surely you understand that your summary cannot be a correct interpretation? Circumcision, for instance, or not eating shellfish are hardly practices "written on the heart" of anyone. These are things one learns and is taught. But they are Biblical - not even rabbinic, but Biblical - requirements of the Law. There are many other such requirements, most of which, I'm sure, you've never heard about.

So, what the heck are you talking about?

(423) john wrote: ..."But your contention that someone who acts in a certain way is probably not a Christian interests me, as you appear to be agreeing that "works" are important, ie it is more than just claiming Christ as personal saviour."

Works are important, but not part of salvation.

It does not require works to get saved, and works do not keep you saved, but works should eventually surface in the life of a Christian.

If there are no works exhibited, and no outward change once a person has claimed to be 'born again' or a Christian, then it's possible that they are not. Oh, it's not definite that they aren't a Christian, but it's likely.

By their fruits, you know them, as well as by their love for the brethren/other Christians.

lawecon, what you have asked me cannot be answered by a quick reply, so let me get back to you on that.

The most important part about Christianity is taking care of the salvation part, and the rest does follow.

>426 fuzzi: But Matthew 25 specifically says you won't get to heaven unless you do good works. I assume salvation involves going to heaven.

> 428. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, KJV).

Would it not follow that there are neither Black or White or Asian, Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu, atheist or polytheist or pagan, "for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”?

A CHRISTIAN IS ONE WHO BELIEVES JESUS CHRIST DIED ON THE CROSS FOR OUR SINS....

> 432. For your logic to hold, God would have written the following passage this way: "for ye are all one in Allah, Buddha, or whatever God you select."

No. For my logic to hold, the passage would be written: "for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

The key to the passage is not just "Christ Jesus", but is also "all" and "one" and "ye". Also, "for" and "are" and "in".

There's no "IF" in the passage. All are included. That's why the angel told the shepherds: "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people."

>434 thomashwalker2: I imagine that God is powerful enough to take away the sins of the world without everyone having to believe in God.

(429) john, Matthew 25 is a pretty big chapter, which verses particularly are you referring to?

(430) The verse is directed to born again believers.

All believers are one in Christ, any color, any gender...past religions do not matter IF they have accepted Christ's offer of salvation.

(435) John, all sins are forgiven, all a person has to do is believe sincerely that God has raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and say so, and he/she shall be washed clean of sin.

Salvation is a free gift, but it has to be accepted by the person wanting to be forgiven.

>437 fuzzi: See >420 John5918: - Matthew 25:31-46

Do any of you know what the main theme of the Bible is?

Most people think it's Heaven or Hell or the Golden Rule or the Commandments, but it's none of these.

The main theme throughout the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is GOD'S SON.

So, if someone wants to say rude things about Jesus Christ, or rejects what He did to cleanse their sins, then I seriously doubt God's too keen on making salvation exceptions for them.

:(

">437 fuzzi: See >420 John5918: - Matthew 25:31-46"

Okay, let me get back to you on that. I have a few things I need to do before I leave work (I needed a few minutes break for my sanity's sake, and came to LT! Arrggh!!), and I might not have time to do so tonight as I'm supposedly going to be mixing cookie dough.

Feel free to nag me tomorrow if I don't get to back to you by the evening. It's that time of year...

...but I will get back to you. :)

> 434. However, doesn't it make sense that you would have to believe in Him?

Actually, no.

Jesus, in his death agony, asked God to forgive those who didn't believe in Him. Jesus told us to love our enemies. Jesus told us to love our neighbors and then illustrated this teaching with a little story identifying a "neighbor" as the least likely person his audience could have thought of. If he were to have told the parable of the Good Samaritan today, to an audience of American Christians, he likely would have identified the Samaritan as a Muslim.

Simeon praises God for allowing him to live long enough so that "my eyes have seen Your salvation which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel.” Luke 2:30-32.

All peoples.

> 438. Salvation is a free gift, but it has to be accepted by the person wanting to be forgiven.

Unconditional love is not unconditional if there are any conditions. If salvation is a free gift, that's what it is -- free and a gift. It's not contingent on the beneficiary having to follow some sort of behavioral formula of any kind. It's free. And it's a gift. You don't even need to say "thank you" -- although it's only polite to do so.

> 441. if someone wants to say rude things about Jesus Christ, or rejects what He did to cleanse their sins, then I seriously doubt God's too keen on making salvation exceptions for them.

I don't think God has made any salvation exceptions for them. They're saved like everyone else.

~428

There is a difference between the Law (Ten Commandments) which was given to the world via Israel, and the 613 ordinances mentioned in the first five books of the Old Testament: circumcision, sacrifice preparation, cleansing practices, eating of pork, shellfish and so forth.
===========================

So when Paul repeatedly told Gentile converts to Christianity that they did not need to be circumcised and claimed that those who were "in Christ" were liberated from the Law he was referring to the "The Commandments". Really. What a unique interpretation.

~432

For your logic to hold, God would have written the following passage this way: "for ye are all one in Allah, Buddha, or whatever God you select."

=======================================

Now God wrote the "New Testament?" Another unique interpretation. How and when did he deliver it to mankind and why was it in fragments?

~427

lawecon, what you have asked me cannot be answered by a quick reply, so let me get back to you on that.

=====================================

I look forward to that with great anticipation.

419: Let me make sure since you apparently avoided the verses that I gave you. Are you saying that you do not "judge" others? Please answer with a yes or no, thank you.

420: Matthew 25:31-46 should be a way of life to the Christian, not so much in feeding the hungry, clothing the destitute, and ministering to those in prison (specifically, but included)- as has been said these and more will be exhibited in the life of a Christian; what is your interpretation for this verse and how do you think it relates to Romans 11:6, if you believe works is part of salvation? Please answer.

I agree with you that there are many different opinions on the subject of salvation by grace/salvation by grace + works/salvation by works; while there are many opinions, only one of these three can be true. Of course, I believe salvation is by grace (through faith) + nothing else and I believe this to be the Bible way of salvation. Again, please explain what Romans 11:6 means if you disagree.

"But others have simply pointed out to you that the majority of Christians historically and numerically have probably tended towards variants of (a)."

I understand this and do not disagree with your assumption that the "majority" of Christians historically and numerically lean toward the variants of (a). While, this is most likely true, does it mean when the majority believe something then that makes something true? According to the Bible, the majority are not heading to "life," but more are heading to "destruction." I would assume, that by making the point in the above quote, that you agree with it. If so, do you believe more will be in heaven or hell (please use Matthew 7:13-14 to explain).

"You're not actually judging/discerning the "fruits" of anyone who has posted here because you're not in a position to do so. You have no idea who they are, how they live their lives, how they respond to God's call, etc."

You are correct and when did I judge/discern the "fruits" of anyone who has posted here? Which number post was it?

"You appear to be judging them simply on the basis that their interpretation of the bible differs from yours."

No, I am offering my opinion (as are they); and since, others are disagreeing with me- I would presume that they are likewise judging me (or, as I am, offering their opinion). I can't be judging others when I have a different opinion, but others aren't judging me when their opinion differs from mine.

424: "No good reason."

The reason is sin; sin has separated us from an "Holy" God; in order to be accepted by a Holy God (salvation), one must become unseparated (reunited, reconciled, back to Him); this is done by accepting Jesus Christ free gift of salvation that He completely paid for on Calvary. The reason is, when you commit a transgression of the law you must pay for your transgression; the payment for those who choose to reject Christ is to pay for their sin themself and the penalty for this is eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. The person who accepts Jesus Christ's gift of salvation, their slate (as far as punishment for sin) is wiped clean and they receive the righteousness of Christ and eternal life.

"Obviously, there were many millions of people who lived before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. After his birth for centuries, and perhaps even today, there have been billions of people who are born, live for awhile and die without "hearing his message" (whichever of the several messages you've repeated in this forum that may be). So what about them? Does an unjust G-d simply consign them to Hell fire for no good reason?"

I know that this question was directed to fuzzi, but I presume directed at others also so I will give you my belief. I base my belief that those who "die without hearing this message" are still lost and without salvation, by Romans 1:16-32. How do you interpret these verses?

426: Amen, fuzzi!

429: Those verses list three things; since you seem to be basing at least part of your doctrine on these verses, are these the only "works" that you must do to go to heaven? Again, please rectify this belief with Romans 11:6?

430: "Jews and Gentiles" are races of people, not people's adherence to religions (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheists, Polytheists, or pagan).

431: Amen!

432/434: Amen!

433: I think it is important that you read Galatians 3:26-29 (and not just verse 28). Verse 26 specifically states, "For you are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus." I believe "through faith in Christ Jesus" is the key to these four verses. Do you disagree?

435: God did this very thing through His Son Jesus Christ, Hallelujah!

437/438: Amen, fuzzi!

439: I believe I understand your point; however, God cannot do everything. God cannot lie, God cannot go back on His promises, God cannot un-adopt a child, God cannot contradict His Word- there are many things God cannot do. I believe your point by your post is, that God also cannot allow sinners into Heaven without a sacrifice for their sins being made- and that can only be done when Jesus Christ's work on Calvary is accepted as a free gift by by each individual. And if this be your point, I say- Amen!

441: Amen, fuzzi!

444: "It's not contingent on the beneficiary having to follow some sort of behavioral formula of any kind. It's free. And it's a gift. You don't even need to say "thank you" -- although it's only polite to do so." You are correct, salvation is a gift- but it must be accepted to be realized. If I offered you a gift and you didn't receive it, would you possess the gift? No, nor do you possess the gift of salvation unless you receive it. Do you disagree with this?

445: If all are saved, without accepting the gift of salvation (or calling on God for it)- how do you interpret Romans 10:13?

446: Amen! Christ liberated sinners from all the Law (not just the Ten Commandments). We must also keep in mind, as stated earlier, that the law was given as a schoolmaster (tutor) to lead people to Christ (Galatians 3:19-25), it wasn't given for anyone to try and keep.

447: Do you not believe, "All scripture is given by inspiration (Gk. theopneustos, "God-breathed") of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"? I would say, "given by inspiration of God" refers to the true authorship of scripture. Do you not agree?

>449 jntjesussaves: Romans 10:13 - all who call on the name of the Lord will certainly be saved, but that verse doesn't necessarily exclude other people.

I agree with you that the truth about Christianity is not about majorities. However doesn't it give you any pause for thought that rather a lot of people over the centuries and across the world today who are presumably as intelligent, sincere, prayerful, committed to the Lord, open to the guidance of the Spirit, etc as you are have read the same bible verses as you and have come to a different conclusion? It's just too easy to say that they are all wrong (going to hell, in fact, as they have not been "saved" according to your understanding of salvation) and only a very small group of modern-day Christians have the correct understanding of the salvation in the bible.

"Amen! Christ liberated sinners from all the Law (not just the Ten Commandments)."

Now I'm really confused. Above you had distinguished between "the Ten Commandments" (from which you apparently believed Christians were not "liberated") and the Law (from which you apparently believed Christians were liberated) Now you (correctly) say that the "Ten Commandments" are a part of the Law......... Ignoring that about face, are you saying that Christians, being liberated from the "Ten Commandments," can murder, steal, commit adultry, etc. with impunity? In fact, Chrstians have some times so concluded. What is your view?

"Do you not believe, "All scripture is given by inspiration""

Ah, another about face. Above you said that G-d wrote at least a portion of the New Testament. I asked you how he wrote it and how he delivered it. Now he "inspired" various men, and various times and various places to write it. Which is it? Could you stick to one position for five minutes? Or is what matters your "faith" conclusions rather than any coherent arguments for and formulation of your faith?

Ah, Amen!

Would it not follow that there are neither Black or White or Asian, Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu, atheist or polytheist or pagan, "for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”?

In Paul's context it's clear that, from Muslim on, that's not what he's saying, but rather that he's talking about the oneness of the baptised. The full passage is:

"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."

There can be little doubt that any ascriptive trait which is compatible with baptism would be put in the list by Paul--that there is neither healthy or sick, rich or poor, young or old, etc. (Whether you add, say, add "gay or straight," would depend on whether you though that was ascriptive.) But Paul's context is the kinship, even oneness, through Jesus Christ of all who have been baptised. The reason is not far to seek--the letter was written to the Galatian church, which was experiencing dissention among its members. He was not writing a general-interest philosophical treatise on the kinship of man.

Now, it doesn't follow that Paul is saying the opposite of this--that atheists, Muslims and so forth are NOT our brothers in some way and by some means other than a common baptism.