Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In post #41 CS lewis, McLaren and "other chritstians" are being used as if presenting a correct understanding of Christianity, without verifying that understanding is correct.'Kay. Now which authority is being appealed to in order to support that argument? I tell you. None.
We don't need anyone's opinions on this matter. The question was does Tinker understand Christianity and that has been demonstrated clearly that he doesn't. We can move on now.There is no appeal to, but a descrition of other people's opinion. Which is fair enough if said people's opionions is subject matter.
How can people's beliefs not matter, if people's beliefs is the topic, huh?
I have been reading the new testament, on and off, and something on the very first page struck me as a little odd. It starts off with a long genealogy connecting Joseph to several old testament kings. Why was Joseph's heritage considered relevant if he was not Jesus's father? Why trouble to trace a royal bloodline if Mary wasn't part of it? Was there a time when Jesus was considered Joseph's son, rather than being born of a virgin? Or is there some other reason why we should care about the ancestors of a man Jesus wasn't related to, whom hasn't been mentioned again (at least as far as I've read). Or is that just a normal thing for that period in culture, to start off listing everyone's 'begat's as far back as one can reach?
Not nearly as deep as the other questions you've been getting, but that detail always just seemed irrelevant to me.
In post #41 CS lewis, McLaren and "other chritstians" are being used as if presenting a correct understanding of Christianity, without verifying that understanding is correct.
Don't need that illustrated, everyone knows that. I needed what you think is a correct understanding of what Jesus is doing. If you haven't figured that out, then have the courage to say so, instead of acting like the diversity in thinking is justification for you not having figured out what is going on.No. They are being presented as having different understandings, illustrating that Christianity doesn't have just one understanding of the matter.
Why can't you have an opinion on which understanding is correct? If you want to try to prove non-believers understand Christianity correctly, then that is going to be necessary IMO. You actually need a coherent understanding of what is being attempted.I already said I have no opinion, nor could I, on the matter.
I think the problem is with the quetioner not the with my answers.
Do me the favor of refraining from "grading" me. If you have something you want to get at, you'll have to do a better job of framing the question.
I did answer the question. Myths persist because the continue to help people frame the reality of their relationship with whatever--in the case of the Bible stories, it is their relationship with God.
I gave an example of Adam and how it frames a sense of our relationship with God. This frames our doctrinal understanding of the rest of scripture--whether or not the story actually happened.
If this isn't what you are after, ask a better question.
There is an entire doctrine built around this concept. I believe Wesley formulated it. It is called Entire Sanctification. (Wesley, IIRC, never claimed to have reached this state.)
The doctrine of sanctification runs through the NT. Romans 12:2 say we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Entire Sanctification would be the completion of this process that perhaps is only theoretically possible.
In any case, if Spirit is fundamentally other (other than physical reality) and that Spirit that we have is, say, on loan from God. Then perhaps the prayer to be more like God isn't so far out of line.
When I was an elder I some times taught like this: When we become saved we are adopted into the family of God (adoption language runs through Paul's letters). As we are sanctified, that is to say, transformed, the miracle of salvation is our transformation into the "Blood" children of God. This isn't to say that if you die "early", you won't get to go to heaven. This is just a metaphor about what the process is about.
But all of the above is more mystical than necessary. To be like God can be simply interpreted as being more loving, more just, more merciful, more patient, more all-of-the-fruit-of-the-spirit.
So, in either case, a justification can be made to pray "Let me be more like you." In the first case, you are praying that God "continue that work which was begun in you." The second case is like the first, but without the mystical overtones.
To me, the highlighted answer is acceptable, even it could be more clear. For example, what does the "blood children of God" mean?
The meaning of words here should be more than metaphoric because this is a doctrine, not an explanation. "The family of God" itself demands a serious explanation as the Christianity is a monotheistic religion and the number of Christians are numerous.
To quantify it, I would assign a "grade" C+ to your answer.
I would have thought the contrast between children who are adopted and those who are blood children would have been clear enough. If one is a child of someone but is not adopted, what kind of child is it? A child by blood. Also, the use of the blood in this context nicely ties into Christ's sacrifice.
In any case, I cannot transform children I adopt into my children by birth (by blood). But the miracle of sanctification is we become more than just legal children. (This by the way was not meant to make those who are transform equivalent to Jesus.)
As for your complaints, I give them a C-.
One who has accepted Christ is adopted into the family of God.
It is sometimes alleged that non-believers just don't understand Christianity.
So for as long as this thread remains open, I will answer questions on Christian Theology. I will do so with straight answers and no snark.
ETA: Questions are welcome both from believers and non-believers.
One is sanctified, the other is not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?