A Realization

[Fish and Bread]

Am I the only one that has a HUGE problem with this idea...I mean if that is true then I can't really trust anything I hear in church, and then I don't know what to believe because I can't trust one thing about Christianity, and then I get really scared because I would begin to feel uncertain about EVERYTHING, and that is really a stressful state of mind. That line of thinking just seems really uneasy and scary.

I think that's interesting, because my feelings are the exact opposite. When I get to thinking that the bible is hook, line, and sinker the word of God or that tradition is inerrant; I get stressed and freaked out. I don't agree with the morality of some of the passages, period. It's never acceptable to kill children, even though God is said to order it in the bible. Torture is never acceptable, even though God is said to order it in the bible. I could go on. The idea of a God who is good but also evil, but demands we agree with him on all fronts is just not a pleasant concept to me, for many reasons, not the least of which is that I refuse to abide those things which I would percieve as evil and would probably be damned for it.

In some denominations, you additionally you have to deal with adhering to nitpicky rules. Oh friz, I don't want to go to confession, off to hell with me. What? My [edit: hypthetical (I'm not actually married)] wife and I want to use birth control so we don't have children we can't support, well that's "intrinsically evil". And don't get me started on the anguish these sort of rules cause homosexuals, many of whom become suicidal or resort to self-mutilation because of the immoral directives against homosexual in the bible and tradition. If God made those rules, he's wrong. Bottom line in my book.

I feel much more comfortable when things are a little more cloudy and I'm not as certain, personally. With progressive Christianity, I can believe that God is good and people like me will be saved. To be, that's good news. For folks with my convictions, the old-style Gospel isn't the "good news" at all. If that's the truth -- that God wants people to kill the heretics and burn infants and will damn everyone who disagrees with anything he says to hell -- I'd rather have been kept in the dark.

 

[Fish and Bread]

If truth is eternal and unchanging, and Christ is the eternal way, truth, and the life, how can you say that God or Christianity is "changing"?

God does not change.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8

Your thesis relies on believing every word of the bible. If we don't, it's open for discussion. To me, early Christianity took some great steps towards God, but I don't think it was accurate in it's descriptions of God entirely -- neither the bible or tradition. It's a step on the road towards a more perfect morality.

 

[Fish and Bread]

If you attempt to hold God to a standard there are only two options to choose from.. either you make yourself the standard (which is merely a repetition of the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden) or you believe that there is a standard apart from God which is higher than God.

In the first case, you make youself the standard (which is the recourse of secular humanism and ethical atheists) it is really just an exercise in illogical reasoning. For if there is a God, and we are his creations, for us to dictate to God is the lower attempting to criticize the higher.

Let's do an analogy here: There are a lot of intelligent people in the world who might disagree with those who are less intelligent in any given ethnical argument. Will the smarter person be right 100% of the time? Same analogy, but let's use powerful instead of intelligent. Same analogy, but let's try older instead of intelligent or powerful. That God exists and has all of those aspects doesn't necessarily means he's morally correct on everything. Sometimes, the lower order can be right. But, of course, that's assuming the bible is literally correct on everything -- maybe the bible is wrong about God here and there.

In order for there to be anything other than "might makes right" there must be an over arching all knowing, all just, all authoritative God who decrees from himself what justice is, what right is.

Not really, maybe it's something built into nature or the fabric of the universe instead. Maybe it's something we're evolving towards knowing more fully and don't yet. There are all kinds of possibilities. Yeah, I tend to go with the God scenario, but it doesn't mean it's the only possible scenario.

and if there is such a God, you not only have not right to hold him to account, it is impossible and absurd for you to think that you could do so justly as he himself is the source and standard of all justice.

Do you remember the story of Soddom and Gamora? I think it was Abraham, but if not Abraham one of the other early Jewish patriarchs, who is said to have out argued God on how many good people would need to be present for the cities to be saved. Jacob is said to earn a blessing for struggling with God to a stand till at one point, also. Even the bible hints that maybe, just maybe, humans might have a point when they disagree with the Lord, that there is in fact a sort of divine providence about it. Maybe God means us to challenge his laws here and there, as a way of discovering his true reality.

 

[Inside Edge]

Very nice analogy. However, if I may continue that analogy, I would argue that we'd have a very confused butterfly if everyone was able to choose what they thought or how they feel led that the the new butterfly should look like when it comes out.

We don't need the butterfly analogy, Thomas...

...how would you describe the cake before it's baked?

What about after it's eaten?

Or maybe, what happens to the cake when it just sits there on the counter forever?

I would say God is just fine with our faith as flour, egg, water, sugar, etc. And He's just as fine with it when it's all mixed and a goupy batter. And He's still fine with it when it's baked into a cake. And He probably doesn't mind if we add icing or sprinkles, or even some ice cream on the side - as long as we still have the cake.

Let me tell you though, when cake sits out it goes stale. It can even get rock-hard. And mouldy.

I'd say Karen and others have a pretty good hold on your analogy: we have to continue to do something with that cake, or it'll just go stale and rot.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Let's do an analogy here: There are a lot of intelligent people in the world who might disagree with those who are less intelligent in any given ethnical argument. Will the smarter person be right 100% of the time? Same analogy, but let's use powerful instead of intelligent. Same analogy, but let's try older instead of intelligent or powerful. That God exists and has all of those aspects doesn't necessarily means he's morally correct on everything. Sometimes, the lower order can be right. But, of course, that's assuming the bible is literally correct on everything -- maybe the bible is wrong about God here and there..

The analogy you present is a false comparison, probably because I didn't express my point clearly enough. God is not merely higher.. he is the source. All that we know of justice, or of love comes from him. Thus to make something truly analogous you would have to have one person who knew all about a topic, and a student of that person.. the student then turning around and telling the teacher what is right and what is wrong, when all that the student knows has been taught to him by the teacher. In this analogy if the student disagrees with the teacher there are only two reasons why.. one the student has found a source of knowledge outside the teacher (going back to the seprent and eve in the garden of eden and also we'll come back to this in your next point) OR the student, through lacking full knowledge and understanding has gone into error.

Not really, maybe it's something built into nature or the fabric of the universe instead. Maybe it's something we're evolving towards knowing more fully and don't yet. There are all kinds of possibilities. Yeah, I tend to go with the God scenario, but it doesn't mean it's the only possible scenario.

Here again your simply resorting to the secondary argument I pointed out in my post. Namely that there is something higher than God. What you call that thing, wether it be the fabric of the universe, or another deity, is somewhat irrelevant. All you are doing is suggesting that there is a higher truth that God. In effect forming a new concept of God.. in the case of the "universe" you are just making God impersonal.

In this recourse you are also tending towards exaltation of self because if you, mortal that you are, know this universal truth which contradicts God and is higher than God, it must be reasoned that you have apprehended it mysticly somehow.. whatever this new God, fabric of the universe or whatever, it must some how have revealed this knowledge in you.. setting you up against the God of the bible. It essentially turns God into the supreme subjectivity justifying whatever you feel and or think.

Of course the presense of this knowledge within you suggests one of two possabilities, either it is innate, in which case the God of the bible is probably not the creator as it would be hard to believe that he would create us with innate knowledge that contradicts his very nature and would ensure our rebellion against him.
Or, you were created by the God of the bible and in his act of creation he removed you and saught to keep you seperate from the knowledge of the universal that you claim to have seen.

In all cases, the view that you have put forth leads inexorably away from christianity and to gnosticism, eventually probably 'luciferian' gnosticism (which makes up a large percentage of the 'new age' movement).

Do you remember the story of Soddom and Gamora? I think it was Abraham, but if not Abraham one of the other early Jewish patriarchs, who is said to have out argued God on how many good people would need to be present for the cities to be saved. Jacob is said to earn a blessing for struggling with God to a stand till at one point, also. Even the bible hints that maybe, just maybe, humans might have a point when they disagree with the Lord, that there is in fact a sort of divine providence about it. Maybe God means us to challenge his laws here and there, as a way of discovering his true reality.

It was Abraham, and Jacob did earn a blessing by struggling with God.. you might also bring up the example of Job and how he questioned and argued with his friends over the fate that God allowed to come upon him.

I don't think that God has a problem with questioning, seeking answers and understanding. There is, however, a significant difference between asking God "for the sake of how many, will you withhold judgement?"... "why do those who have not done wrong suffer?" if you genuinely seek understanding, and saying that God is unjust, or that he does not have the right to judge. Those things are vastly different in attitude. One is a servant seeking understanding and the other is rebellion.

 

[john23237]

Does God change His mind (and thus the "rules") from time to time? Fair enough question. Let me begin by saying I most certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts on the matter. When Our Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and gave him (and thus the church via A.S.) the power to "bind and loosen "(change the rules or at least our understanding and application of them), He knew full well that He was intrusting the Kingdom of God on earth to weak, flawed mortals. The Holy Spirit was thus given to His church to guide it. The Christ could have simply written a text outlining what was and was not to be done, when and where, in great detail, and thus each and every question we have would have been fully answered and we would not be here asking them. He chose to do nothing of the kind. Why? Perhaps, just perhaps, because He intented to create a living, organic church with His authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to apply the "rules", if you will, to an ever changing society. The "rules" of God do not change, but our understanding of them and their proper application do. Our Lord never said the Law was wrong, but do we see examples in the Gospels when Our Lord explains that their (the people of His time) understanding of the Law was wrong as thus was the manner they were being applied. The authority Christ gave His church is a bit "unsettling" if you will, but it certainly appears to have been part of His plan for us.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Does God change His mind (and thus the "rules") from time to time? Fair enough question. Let me begin by saying I most certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts on the matter. When Our Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and gave him (and thus the church via A.S.) the power to "bind and loosen "(change the rules or at least our understanding and application of them), He knew full well that He was intrusting the Kingdom of God on earth to weak, flawed mortals. The Holy Spirit was thus given to His church to guide it. The Christ could have simply written a text outlining what was and was not to be done, when and where, in great detail, and thus each and every question we have would have been fully answered and we would not be here asking them. He chose to do nothing of the kind. Why? Perhaps, just perhaps, because He intented to create a living, organic church with His authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to apply the "rules", if you will, to an ever changing society. The "rules" of God do not change, but our understanding of them and their proper application do. Our Lord never said the Law was wrong, but do we see examples in the Gospels when Our Lord explains that their (the people of His time) understanding of the Law was wrong as thus was the manner they were being applied. The authority Christ gave His church is a bit "unsettling" if you will, but it certainly appears to have been part of His plan for us.

Good post, John! (can't rep you again, yet).

 

[higgs2]

Does God change His mind (and thus the "rules") from time to time? Fair enough question. Let me begin by saying I most certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts on the matter. When Our Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and gave him (and thus the church via A.S.) the power to "bind and loosen "(change the rules or at least our understanding and application of them), He knew full well that He was intrusting the Kingdom of God on earth to weak, flawed mortals. The Holy Spirit was thus given to His church to guide it. The Christ could have simply written a text outlining what was and was not to be done, when and where, in great detail, and thus each and every question we have would have been fully answered and we would not be here asking them. He chose to do nothing of the kind. Why? Perhaps, just perhaps, because He intented to create a living, organic church with His authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to apply the "rules", if you will, to an ever changing society. The "rules" of God do not change, but our understanding of them and their proper application do. Our Lord never said the Law was wrong, but do we see examples in the Gospels when Our Lord explains that their (the people of His time) understanding of the Law was wrong as thus was the manner they were being applied. The authority Christ gave His church is a bit "unsettling" if you will, but it certainly appears to have been part of His plan for us.

I can't rep you again either! But -- good post!

 

[Thomas2618]

Does God change His mind (and thus the "rules") from time to time? Fair enough question. Let me begin by saying I most certainly do not have all the answers, but here are a few thoughts on the matter. When Our Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and gave him (and thus the church via A.S.) the power to "bind and loosen "(change the rules or at least our understanding and application of them), He knew full well that He was intrusting the Kingdom of God on earth to weak, flawed mortals. The Holy Spirit was thus given to His church to guide it. The Christ could have simply written a text outlining what was and was not to be done, when and where, in great detail, and thus each and every question we have would have been fully answered and we would not be here asking them. He chose to do nothing of the kind. Why? Perhaps, just perhaps, because He intented to create a living, organic church with His authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to apply the "rules", if you will, to an ever changing society. The "rules" of God do not change, but our understanding of them and their proper application do. Our Lord never said the Law was wrong, but do we see examples in the Gospels when Our Lord explains that their (the people of His time) understanding of the Law was wrong as thus was the manner they were being applied. The authority Christ gave His church is a bit "unsettling" if you will, but it certainly appears to have been part of His plan for us.

Great post. Well said... It's certainly important there, that that authority was given to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through Apostolic Succesion, and not to the individual.

 

[Fish and Bread]

The analogy you present is a false comparison, probably because I didn't express my point clearly enough. God is not merely higher.. he is the source. All that we know of justice, or of love comes from him.

This is according to one theory. You're basing your logic on the acceptance of certain principles that are not proved -- in essence, on faith. Faith is a great thing, but it's a hard thing to prove logically.

However, even accepting those premises, we could certainly say we've been wrong about God in the past, that there are errors in the bible, in tradition, etc.; and that we are being led into the fullness of truth. There are a lot of different ways to look at things.

Thus to make something truly analogous you would have to have one person who knew all about a topic, and a student of that person.. the student then turning around and telling the teacher what is right and what is wrong, when all that the student knows has been taught to him by the teacher. In this analogy if the student disagrees with the teacher there are only two reasons why.. one the student has found a source of knowledge outside the teacher (going back to the seprent and eve in the garden of eden and also we'll come back to this in your next point) OR the student, through lacking full knowledge and understanding has gone into error.

Well, I think with a lot of matter of morality, we're talking about opinion questions. Knowing everything doesn't mean one is right everything, particularly when subjective matters are discussed. It's not a question of true and false so much of a question of what's the best way to live -- and the answer depends to a certain extent on the people involved. That's not to say that there aren't universal truths, it's just to say that not *everything* must be a universal truth that is objective. There are elements of both objective and subjective truths which together comprise our common realities.

In this recourse you are also tending towards exaltation of self because if you, mortal that you are, know this universal truth which contradicts God and is higher than God, it must be reasoned that you have apprehended it mysticly somehow.. whatever this new God, fabric of the universe or whatever, it must some how have revealed this knowledge in you.. setting you up against the God of the bible. It essentially turns God into the supreme subjectivity justifying whatever you feel and or think.

I don't recall if you're a member of ECUSA or not, but if you are, you might recall at church today that the epistle lesson talked about circumcision and how it was not required among Christians -- "remain in the state you were called" or something along those lines was the gist of St. Paul's argument. Now, obviously, St. Paul had a bit of a different outlook than I do, but I think the line of reasoning is interesting in this sense: Circumcision was thought by the Jews to be absolutely necessary, in essence the moral law, an eternal covenant. Now the Christian came along and said, "No, it's irrelevant". This is justified by the new covenant and this, that, and the other, but, let's face it, bottom line is that it's a new understanding of the way things are. A new understanding of God, nature, morality, etc. Brought to us by Jesus and his Apostles, yes, but in fundamental contradiction to what went before. I think that sort of discovery and revelation is a continuing process. We're wrong about some things and go back and revise them.

Of course the presense of this knowledge within you suggests one of two possabilities, either it is innate, in which case the God of the bible is probably not the creator as it would be hard to believe that he would create us with innate knowledge that contradicts his very nature and would ensure our rebellion against him.
Or, you were created by the God of the bible and in his act of creation he removed you and saught to keep you seperate from the knowledge of the universal that you claim to have seen.

I think there's a middle ground there. The bible is people's guesses about God. Some hit the mark, some don't. It's not really an all or nothing proposition, necessarily.

In all cases, the view that you have put forth leads inexorably away from christianity and to gnosticism, eventually probably 'luciferian' gnosticism (which makes up a large percentage of the 'new age' movement).

Okay, I know what gnosticism is and I know what satanism is. What's luciferian (Satanist) gnosticism?

I don't think that God has a problem with questioning, seeking answers and understanding. There is, however, a significant difference between asking God "for the sake of how many, will you withhold judgement?"... "why do those who have not done wrong suffer?" if you genuinely seek understanding, and saying that God is unjust, or that he does not have the right to judge. Those things are vastly different in attitude. One is a servant seeking understanding and the other is rebellion.

I like the God who in Christ called us friends rather than servants.

 

[gtsecc]

Fish and Bread, Justice can only exist if God exists - any God.
Even an Atheist will tell you that.
That justice derives it essence from God is NOT a Christian idea.
If there is no God, then we are our own God and might makes right.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Fish and Bread, Justice can only exist if God exists - any God.
Even an Atheist will tell you that.
That justice derives it essence from God is NOT a Christian idea.

I don't get this, gtsecc. It sounds like you are contradicting yourself with your first sentence and your last sentence.

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Fish and Bread, I deeply admire you. Nonetheless, I find this post very disturbing. There is a point when Christianity ceases to be Christianity, and a point when God ceases to be God.
As much as I admire the truths other religions appear to hold, I do not see them as close to valid. Despite things I've said in the past, I've come to see this.
Anglican Christianity is no longer Anglican Christianity when it is High Church Unitarianism.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Yeah, I feel uncomfortable with universal salvation. Most of the time.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Fish and Bread, I deeply admire you. Nonetheless, I find this post very disturbing. There is a point when Christianity ceases to be Christianity, and a point when God ceases to be God.
As much as I admire the truths other religions appear to hold, I do not see them as close to valid. Despite things I've said in the past, I've come to see this.
Anglican Christianity is no longer Anglican Christianity when it is High Church Unitarianism.

It's interesting. My thinking seems to have evolved leftward as your's has evolved rightward. I'm not so much interested in labeling as I am in finding a faith that adds to my life and doesn't take away. With traditional Christianity, increasingly, what I see is a cross, and one that may not even yield a resurrection. My life is rough enough to begin with. If God loves me, he'll save me. If he doesn't, he may not. Sometimes, I think that's where I have to leave things.

My hope is in a God who loves and not a God who punishes. Ultimately, if God is as the bible says he is in all respects, then, I'll be honest, I think it points straight to the door of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact of the matter is, though, that I don't believe what they teach is right. I'm not saying that as a criticism of that particular church, but just as a way of explaining my thought process in deciding to be a post-modern Christian. I can't believe that people can be doomed to hell for not doing good works. Yes, upon forth examination, I do believe that the bible says it, but I don't believe it's true. Or, at least, if it's the way of things, than that's not a God I can really truly follow. I don't believe it was okay for the Israelites to stone to death people for gathering wheat on the Sabbath. I don't believe that homosexuality is evil. I don't believe that hell is morally justifiable. And that's where I stand.

When I realized that conceptually where I was at, a sort of moderate to liberal high-church Protestantism, didn't hold up intellectually, it left with two ways to remain within Christiandom in a formal way and be intellectually honest with myself. One way was to become a sort of post-modern Christian, the other was to become a Roman Catholic (Or something close to it). Alternately, I could have become a Unitarian Universalist or stopped attending church already.

I feel a strong connection with some of the traditions and the teachings of Christianity. I see God in the Christ figure. I like a good liturgy, priests, bishops, traditional church hymns, etc. And, ultimately, I like the way the Episcopal Church is going. So, I wanted to remain in a Christian church.

I couldn't be Roman Catholic, though, because you can see the sort of strong heartfelt objections I had to that type of God. It'd be a huge cross for me. There's a huge sense of dread. Maybe, just maybe, I could live like that, but I'd never ever be happy. I'd be flat out miserable. I don't believe that's what a loving God would want.

So, yeah, to some, I've gone beyond the bounds of Christianity, and I understand why they might say that. I've moved to a point where I'm no longer confessionally Christian as it's been historically understood. And, yet, I uniquely identify God with the Christ figure and my spirituality is bound up uniquely in the Christian tradition. The basic sense of the term Christian is "One of or relating to Christ". In that sense, I'm very Christian. But if growing in my spirituality means I can't quite use that term as I used to, well, God is about more than terminology. I'm still not quite Bishop Spong liberal, so if he can be an Episcopalian bishop, I'm sure I can continue to be an Episcopalian pew sitter.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Yeah, I feel uncomfortable with universal salvation. Most of the time.

Maybe the reason we sometimes feel uncomfortable with the concept of universal salvation is that it's not the way of the world. In this world, people are allowed to suffer, starve, etc.; based on a perceived lack of merit, or because of wrongdoing. Maybe God is beyond that, understands our faults, and loves us for who we are, unconditionally. If we can sometimes be forgiving and sometimes be accepting and sometimes be loving, as weak and as flawed as we are, could not God, who is theoretically perfect, forgive, accept, and love beyond that? A God who demands a pound of flesh, and even eternal torture sometimes, for transgressions is no better than a man.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I'm not sure what to ask at this point...

I can't see that you would be one to believe that your faith shouldn't have to move out of its comfort zone at times, could you?




I must say, though, that I do like this quote:

God is about more than terminology.

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Maybe the reason we sometimes feel uncomfortable with the concept of universal salvation is that it's not the way of the world. In this world, people are allowed to suffer, starve, etc.; based on a perceived lack of merit, or because of wrongdoing. Maybe God is beyond that, understands our faults, and loves us for who we are, unconditionally. If we can sometimes be forgiving and sometimes be accepting and sometimes be loving, as weak and as flawed as we are, could not God, who is theoretically perfect, forgive, accept, and love beyond that? A God who demands a pound of flesh, and even eternal torture sometimes, for transgressions is no better than a man.

It's not Universal Salvation I have a problem with, but rather the view that other religions are equally valid in the sight of God. Where that so, Calvary would have been in vain.

 

[TomUK]

It's not Universal Salvation I have a problem with, but rather the view that other religions are equally valid in the sight of God. Where that so, Calvary would have been in vain.

Exactly

*tom points down to the poem in his sig*

 

[Colabomb]

What about love, compassion, acceptance, tolerance, and respect for the human dignity of all persons make right?

Those things are only good, because God, the definition of Good says they are.

For fallible sinful man to come up with a morality of his own is ridiculous.