is there a Christian group for me any more?

Targaryen · Sep 1, 2014

FireDragon76 said:
Yes, but Anglican beliefs don't exhaust what it means to be a Christian. There are plenty of Christian groups that do not accept creeds as part of their religious and spiritual life.

You call yourself a liberal Christian but the idea that Jesus taught all the propositions in the Nicene Creed is intellectually naïve.

I am a liberal Christian. However, abandoning orthodoxy, tradition and exploration of those traditions seems more naive and intellectually false then approaching Orthodox views and restudying what led to them and why and seeing where those views clash with modern awareness and insight that is not solely derived from secularism.

Nor was I implying that Anglicanism exhausts Christian understanding or awareness. I said what I did, cause I don't think anglicanism would be a good fit for the OP'er. There are traditions such as Unitarianism that might be a far better fit then a group that relies on the orthodox interpretation of the Creeds.

As for what Jesus taught that led to the Creeds, maybe rather then attacking me cause I happen to hold to an orthodox view and you don't, you might want to re-read the gospels again and see what you think.

rich1540 · Sep 2, 2014

I don't know. I just think Jesus would make the message simple enough for everybody to understand. I don't think the Nicene Creed fulfils that brief as it would prove exclusionary to some. It is just too complicated.

christianmomof3 · Sep 2, 2014

rich1540 said:
To me the foundation of our faith is that Jesus and God the father are one and the same. Nothing else matters apart from that conviction. That is my rock, my love, my joy, my sorrow and my life.

I think that I would agree with that in that I have prayed to Jesus as if He is God. My whole Christian life, to me, Jesus is God - not a separate entity. I don't believe that any dead people are omniscient and like I said, I have no idea what happens to people after death, so I think it is not proper or practical or useful to pray to any dead people. So, I have never seen Jesus as a dead person, but as God.

I don't see the Bible as an inerrant work and I certainly don't think the words in it attributed to Jesus are really things that He said. People did not have recording equipment then nor did they write much or quickly and the books of the NT were not written until beginning almost 100 years after his death. My mother died a bit over 30 years ago and there are very few things that I could quote accurately from her. I realize that people in those days passed stories on by word of mouth much more than they do now, but I do not see the NT as quotes of things that Jesus actually said.

FireDragon76 · Sep 2, 2014

LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:
.
As for what Jesus taught that led to the Creeds, maybe rather then attacking me cause I happen to hold to an orthodox view and you don't, you might want to re-read the gospels again and see what you think.

It's less that I object to orthodox beliefs, and more that I object to the whole concept of orthodoxy as a marker of who is, and is not , a Christian. This attitude isn't unique to Unitarians, either. You'll probably find a lot of liberal Christians that share that. You can't reduce being a Christian to belief in a creed. There are many groups such as Anabaptists, Quakers, or Restorationists that are not at all creedal. And some mainline Protestants in the more historic denominations also would tend to agree- they see creeds more as symbols, not as propositions.

elman · Sep 2, 2014

LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:
Anglicanism promotes orthodox Christianity FireDragon, an orthodox Christianity that Jesus taught and the NT taught and was defined in the bible and the Creeds.
The OP said she no longer believes in certain things that orthodox Christianity holds as not only true but essential.

Jesus did not teach orthodox Christianity. He taught Christianity and men have created orthodox Christianity which is for the most part wrong throughout the history of Christianity. Man made creeds are not the Christianity that Jesus taught.

elman · Sep 2, 2014

FireDragon76 said:
It's less that I object to orthodox beliefs, and more that I object to the whole concept of orthodoxy as a marker of who is, and is not , a Christian. This attitude isn't unique to Unitarians, either. You'll probably find a lot of liberal Christians that share that. You can't reduce being a Christian to belief in a creed. There are many groups such as Anabaptists, Quakers, or Restorationists that are not at all creedal. And some mainline Protestants in the more historic denominations also would tend to agree- they see creeds more as symbols, not as propositions.

I was raised in a church that rebelled against all creeds, but then they proceeded to create their own oral creed, just did not write it down.

Targaryen · Sep 2, 2014

FireDragon76 said:
It's less that I object to orthodox beliefs, and more that I object to the whole concept of orthodoxy as a marker of who is, and is not , a Christian. This attitude isn't unique to Unitarians, either. You'll probably find a lot of liberal Christians that share that. You can't reduce being a Christian to belief in a creed. There are many groups such as Anabaptists, Quakers, or Restorationists that are not at all creedal. And some mainline Protestants in the more historic denominations also would tend to agree- they see creeds more as symbols, not as propositions.

Which is why I happen to belong to the Anglican church, the Creeds for me is an active and needed part of my faith.

rich1540 · Sep 2, 2014

Doesn't the Anglican Church in certain regions allow gay ministers?

Minister; Oh your gay. That's quite ok. You can't accept the Nicene creed? Begone wicked one.

Targaryen · Sep 2, 2014

rich1540 said:
Doesn't the Anglican Church in certain regions allow gay ministers?

Minister; Oh your gay. That's quite ok. You can't accept the Nicene creed? Begone wicked one.

There is a difference in re-evaluating biblical text in the light of context and underlying meaning then rejecting article of traditional faith.

But sure, you can jump through ludicrous hoops to keep making judgments based off of personal feeling then genuine fact that drives certain liberal theological movements.

rich1540 · Sep 3, 2014

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Targaryen · Sep 3, 2014

Which is just as akin to what you believe. Uninteresting and unintelligent "rebuttals" don't change that fact either.

tdidymas · Sep 3, 2014

I'd like to respond to your statement that the NT might not be exact quotes of Christ. Probably not, but does that really matter? The truth is the truth, regardless of what particular words that people use to convey it. Scarcely 2 weeks after Jesus' ascension, the apostles were preaching to the crowds, so it is reasonable to assume that they remembered many sayings that Jesus spoke, since it is reasonable to assume that Some things Jesus said were repeated many times during His 4 year ministry. It is also reasonable to assume that they repeated those sayings thousands of times in the years following, which mostly ended up in the writings of the gospels 20 years later.

But the important point is not the exact words being said, but the point being made, the truth being conveyed, the idea being communicated. We believe the apostles who wrote the NT got it right, because Jesus told them that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all the truth. Therefore I highly recommend to keep reading it in order to discover the truths taught in it.

Good luck in your search.

TD

rich1540 · Sep 3, 2014

LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:
Which is just as akin to what you believe. Uninteresting and unintelligent "rebuttals" don't change that fact either.

With all due respect Sir, maybe you should consider yourself superfluous to this conversation.

Targaryen · Sep 3, 2014

rich1540 said:
With all due respect Sir, maybe you should consider yourself superfluous to this conversation.

Would be the first time that respect would be shown. And no, considering that I believe I've responded to the OP with a suggestion that would be of more benefit to her then an orthodox path, I find the only superfluousness here, is this attacking mindset that liberals hate when others do to them.

Perhaps instead of attacking my points, you can worry about the OP's needs?

rich1540 · Sep 3, 2014

LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:
Would be the first time that respect would be shown. And no, considering that I believe I've i to the OP with a suggestion that would be of more benefit to her then an orthodox path, I find the only superfluousness here, is this attacking mindset that liberals hate when others do to them.

Perhaps instead of attacking my points, you can worry about the OP's needs?

I have a vested interest in this conversation as the OP and me hold similar views. I thought sharing what i thought may be a safe choice may help. I apologise for any annoyance i might have caused.

christianmomof3 · Sep 3, 2014

tdidymas said:
I'd like to respond to your statement that the NT might not be exact quotes of Christ. Probably not, but does that really matter? The truth is the truth, regardless of what particular words that people use to convey it. Scarcely 2 weeks after Jesus' ascension, the apostles were preaching to the crowds, so it is reasonable to assume that they remembered many sayings that Jesus spoke, since it is reasonable to assume that Some things Jesus said were repeated many times during His 4 year ministry. It is also reasonable to assume that they repeated those sayings thousands of times in the years following, which mostly ended up in the writings of the gospels 20 years later.

But the important point is not the exact words being said, but the point being made, the truth being conveyed, the idea being communicated. We believe the apostles who wrote the NT got it right, because Jesus told them that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all the truth. Therefore I highly recommend to keep reading it in order to discover the truths taught in it.

Good luck in your search.
TD

None of the gospels were written 20 years after Jesus's death. The first one that was written was 90 years after Jesus died.
It does not matter to me that those were not exact quotes, but many if not all fundamental Christians do think those are exact quotes and the group that I was with would study and analyze and break down the meanings of the words and try to find the exact correct meanings of every part of the Bible as if it were dictated by God Himself.
I did that too. I have read the entire Bible many times.
But, the Bible was written by men - because most women in those days could not read or write - and it has been copied and re-copied over the years and things have been added in and taken out and changed and to analyze every word like that seems to be a waste of time and effort to me.

In another thread on this board someone stated that to him, it has to be all or nothing - either the Bible is all correct and inerrant and all the promises to Israel are now to the church instead - or it is just useless.

I don't see it that way.
I see the Bible as an incredible book that has influenced a huge amount of people over the years. It tells the history of the Jewish people and their relationship with God and it tells about the beginnings of the Christian religion. It shows that human nature has not changed. It has some beautiful poetry and high moral teachings.

The problem comes when people read something that was written thousands of years ago and try to put it into today's culture and interpret it from today's point of view as if it was written to them and about them when they really don't understand the culture that it was written in.

Targaryen · Sep 3, 2014

christianmomof3 said:
None of the gospels were written 20 years after Jesus's death. The first one that was written was 90 years after Jesus died.
It does not matter to me that those were not exact quotes, but many if not all fundamental Christians do think those are exact quotes and the group that I was with would study and analyze and break down the meanings of the words and try to find the exact correct meanings of every part of the Bible as if it were dictated by God Himself.
I did that too. I have read the entire Bible many times.
But, the Bible was written by men - because most women in those days could not read or write - and it has been copied and re-copied over the years and things have been added in and taken out and changed and to analyze every word like that seems to be a waste of time and effort to me.

In another thread on this board someone stated that to him, it has to be all or nothing - either the Bible is all correct and inerrant and all the promises to Israel are now to the church instead - or it is just useless.

I don't see it that way.
I see the Bible as an incredible book that has influenced a huge amount of people over the years. It tells the history of the Jewish people and their relationship with God and it tells about the beginnings of the Christian religion. It shows that human nature has not changed. It has some beautiful poetry and high moral teachings.

The problem comes when people read something that was written thousands of years ago and try to put it into today's culture and interpret it from today's point of view as if it was written to them and about them when they really don't understand the culture that it was written in.

Yes, that is the problem. which is why I,even if orthodox in my own interpretations, identify as a problem. No context behind the text is taken into consideration with various groups. The key for any liberal Christian is looking not just at the text but the context surrounding the text at the time of it writing, then looking at the causality and seeking to repair what doesn't apply well by taken our modern awareness into account.

is there a Christian group for me any more?

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Regular Member

pursuing Christ

Well-Known Member

elman

elman

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Regular Member

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Regular Member

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Newbie

Regular Member

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Regular Member

pursuing Christ

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Similar threads