I don't know which "one".....

[2PhiloVoid]

Everything is black or white and that's the problem. There's extremes on both sides and little room for gray. You may find a place that ticks the philosophical side but morality is a hot potato and that's what I've noticed. I even contemplated quakers and mennonites and found similar things in those circles.

One day I realized it doesn't exist and I'd have to create it. I'm not referencing buildings in that statement but pools in its place. Because fellowship isn't one-size fits all. You can build multiple networks for every interest in the body. We keep forgetting that.

Yeah. I've come to realize that what I'd ideally like to find probably isn't out there to be found, and it'd have to be created. Unfortunately, because of certain circumstances with my family, I'm not in a place to start up a "new grouping" of Christians. At least, not yet. But I think you're right that that is what it'd likely take for me to find the sort of fellowship that I prefer to be a part of.

I have a group of entrepreneurs who love the Lord and another with a passion for investments. I found another for writers and one for aspiring speakers and so on. The common denominator is God and our shared passion for the subject. How we approach it through faith is incredible and informative too. And I learn a lot! There's never a dearth of conversation because I'm dealing with kindred spirits. I don't have to convince them of its worthiness. They already agree.

We're trying to find our people in a building but they're really spread out. You have a smattering here and there and places you've never gone. Find them and enjoy the experiences. Don't try to convert the others. They're on a different page and that's okay.

Most things have a mate in the body. Look at your hands, feet, eyes, arms, etc. They come in pairs. ;-)

~bella

You sound like you have quite the extensive set of connections. That's a great thing to have, sister Bella!

 

[HTacianas]

Sure. If I come into the church and I let them know that I'm not big on seeing the sacraments as "definitive" in nature for the faith and that I aver more or less for a philosophically primitive form of Christian faith due to a sophisticated epistemological viewpoint, I want to know that I'm not going to be roundly rejected for it.

See what I'm saying? If not, let me put it this way: I don't go to church to proselytize or convert others to my way of thinking. Rather, I go to connect with other Christians in our common Trinitarian faith, but I will firmly defend my more ecumenical, existentially laden point of view against all challengers. The churches that I used to attend in the past wouldn't put up with me now (e.g. Southern Baptist, or Christian Church/Church of Christ, etc.)

Well I can see what your mistake is. And I use the term mistake lightly. As far as the sacraments go, they are defined by Christianity. And Christianity requires that you conform to Christian beliefs, in that Christianity is a system of beliefs. Looking at a secular example, you can't walk into the Moose Club and demand that you not follow their bylaws. Now, what you describe as a "primitive form" of Christianity doesn't exist. From Christianity's earliest days the sacraments have been central. And the primary sacrament has always been the Eucharist. See what Paul said of it here:

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Notice that he does not say "from now on you should start blessing a cup". He says "the cup we bless". They had been blessing the cup even before Paul wrote anything about it. That is the "primitive form of Christianity". And that is the form of Christianity that still exists in the Orthodox Church.

 

[bèlla]

Yeah. I've come to realize that what I'd ideally like to find probably isn't out there to be found, and it'd have to be created. Unfortunately, because of certain circumstances with my family, I'm not in a place to start up a "new grouping" of Christians. At least, not yet. But I think you're right that that is what it'd likely take for me to find the sort of fellowship that I prefer to be a part of.

You know what they say about rebuilding the wheel. Look for them online and use globalism to your advantage. That's usually where it starts and once an area has several people they begin meeting in person.

You sound like you have quite the extensive set of connections. That's a great thing to have, sister Bella!

Thank you. It didn't happen overnight but there's a domino effect. One begets the next and there's usually someone in the group who shares other interests and makes recommendations. Now you're exploring something else and the trend continues. Before you know it you have a wide sphere of specialists on different subjects.

~bella

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well I can see what your mistake is. And I use the term mistake lightly. As far as the sacraments go, they are defined by Christianity. And Christianity requires that you conform to Christian beliefs, in that Christianity is a system of beliefs. Looking at a secular example, you can't walk into the Moose Club and demand that you not follow their bylaws. Now, what you describe as a "primitive form" of Christianity doesn't exist. From Christianity's earliest days the sacraments have been central. And the primary sacrament has always been the Eucharist. See what Paul said of it here:

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Notice that he does not say "from now on you should start blessing a cup". He says "the cup we bless". They had been blessing the cup even before Paul wrote anything about it. That is the "primitive form of Christianity". And that is the form of Christianity that still exists in the Orthodox Church.

Yeah..................... you're not understanding me, HT. When I say that I don't think a sacramental approach is definitive, I'm NOT saying that either baptism or communion, or even marriage, aren't integral to the Christian faith. No, what I'm saying----------and here's the part that causes trouble and of which I was alluding to earlier--------------is that I don't think any one denomination, movement or group among Christians provides an actual complete, comprehensive, or definitive form of the Christian faith for everyone to gaze in on with awe and utter docility.

As I've said for so many years here on CF, I draw my own understanding of the Christian faith from not only the overall 2,000 year swath of diverse thinkers from within the Trinitarian faith, but I'm also heavily indebted to the secular establishment in its many critical scholars and philosophers.

So, that's why you always here me say that I'm a "mild existentialist," because on some level, I approach the Christian Faith as one who is highly skeptical and academically full of inquiry. On a level of history, I think we all can know fairly easily that communion (or the Eucharist) is a central aspect of the Christian Faith, and I'm not questioning that sort of thing. I'd walk out of a church if I showed up and they told me they never do it.

 

[HTacianas]

Yeah..................... you're not understanding me, HT. When I say that I don't think a sacramental approach is definitive, I'm NOT saying that either baptism or communion, or even marriage, aren't integral to the Christian faith. No, what I'm saying----------and here's the part that causes trouble and of which I was alluding to earlier--------------is that I don't think any one denomination, movement or group among Christians provides an actual complete, comprehensive, or definitive form of the Christian faith for everyone to gaze in on with awe and utter docility.

As I've said for so many years here on CF, I draw my own understanding of the Christian faith from not only the overall 2,000 year swath of diverse thinkers from within the Trinitarian faith, but I'm also heavily indebted to the secular establishment in its many critical scholars and philosophers.

So, that's why you always here me say that I'm a "mild existentialist," because on some level, I approach the Christian Faith as one who is highly skeptical and academically full of inquiry. On a level of history, I think we all can know fairly easily that communion (or the Eucharist) is a central aspect of the Christian Faith, and I'm not questioning that sort of thing. I'd walk out of a church if I showed up and they told me they never do it.

If you bounce around a whole lot of protestant denominations you will get that idea. But the Orthodox Church is not a denomination. The Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ and still lives through his guidance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you bounce around a whole lot of protestant denominations you will get that idea. But the Orthodox Church is not a denomination. The Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ and still lives through his guidance.

I didn't say that I bounce around a lot of protestant groups, HTacianas. You're getting the wrong idea about me, which is odd being that I already mentioned that I draw from 2,000 years worth of Christian thinkers, among other sources.

Why would you assume I'm protestant?

(Side note: I'm not here to debate these points. I'm merely getting other's thoughts on 'finding a church' that fits my outlook on the Christian Faith and Life.)

 

[HTacianas]

I didn't say that I bounce around a lot of protestant groups, HTacianas. You're getting the wrong idea about me, which is odd being that I already mentioned that I draw from 2,000 years worth of Christian thinkers, among other sources.

Why would you assume I'm protestant?

(Side note: I'm not here to debate these points. I'm merely getting other's thoughts on 'finding a church' that fits my outlook on the Christian Faith and Life.)

I didn't say that you were a protestant, but based on some of the things you've said, those are some of the things you'll find among protestant denominations. Primarily because they have the same founding. Someone stands up one day and says "the Church is wrong come and follow me". All of them began that way. But then later someone else stands up and says "this group is wrong follow me". Before long you have thousands of splits and schisms, each one holding some minor portion of the truth, but all at odds with each other. You go to one and find that they are right on some thing or another but wrong on everything else. The next one is the same, and on and on. That's the path I took to get where I am today.

But you have to be careful in looking for some group that supports your own beliefs. You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs, but that is not Christianity. Christianity is repentance from your old beliefs and acceptance of Christianity's beliefs. Taking some other route leads you to becoming just another of those thousands who have come before you claiming to hold "the truth" and going off and forming your own group then getting lost among all the others.

I also draw from 2000 years of Christian thinkers. Or at least 1500 years of Christian thinkers, because after 1500 years some of the thinkers ran off and did their own thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't say that you were a protestant, but based on some of the things you've said, those are some of the things you'll find among protestant denominations. Primarily because they have the same founding. Someone stands up one day and says "the Church is wrong come and follow me". All of them began that way. But then later someone else stands up and says "this group is wrong follow me". Before long you have thousands of splits and schisms, each one holding some minor portion of the truth, but all at odds with each other. You go to one and find that they are right on some thing or another but wrong on everything else. The next one is the same, and on and on. That's the path I took to get where I am today.

But you have to be careful in looking for some group that supports your own beliefs. You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs, but that is not Christianity. Christianity is repentance from your old beliefs and acceptance of Christianity's beliefs. Taking some other route leads you to becoming just another of those thousands who have come before you claiming to hold "the truth" and going off and forming your own group then getting lost among all the others.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying and, unfortunately, miscasting it in a light that changes the contextual direction of what I'm actually saying.

My current Christian beliefs are what they are after doing various forms of research, not from a casual pondering or musings about what the Christian Faith could possibly be. I've studied quite a bit over the years and as I briefly mentioned before, and it's for this set of reasons that I believe what I currently believe, or purposely don't believe, with a more or less justified awareness.

So, I'm considering which churches might be within the philosophical orbit of my current beliefs. Moreover, I'm not wanting to go off and create my own group. .......................... but y'know, the more I think about it, the more it becomes a tempting endeavor.

I also draw from 2000 years of Christian thinkers. Or at least 1500 years of Christian thinkers, because after 1500 years some of the thinkers ran off and did their own thing.

... in my case, I'm more like Nicolaus Copernicus in my theological divergence than I am Martin Luther. Maybe keep that in mind, too.

 

[Richard T]

I am glad you are open minded. I would want you in my church but the tune best played in church is one that is devolved (allows the congregation freedom such as found in I Cor 14:26) and one that the Holy Spirit is moving so that all ideas from the flesh are soon removed. If i were you I would look for that power.

1 Corinthians 2:4-5 (KJV)
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

 

[HTacianas]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying and, unfortunately, miscasting it in a light that changes the contextual direction of what I'm actually saying.

My current Christian beliefs are what they are after doing various forms of research, not from a casual pondering or musings about what the Christian Faith could possibly be. I've studied quite a bit over the years and as I briefly mentioned before, and it's for this set of reasons that I believe what I currently believe, or purposely don't believe, with a more or less justified awareness.

So, I'm considering which churches might be within the philosophical orbit of my current beliefs. Moreover, I'm not wanting to go off and create my own group. .......................... but y'know, the more I think about it, the more it becomes a tempting endeavor.


... in my case, I'm more like Nicolaus Copernicus in my theological divergence than I am Martin Luther. Maybe keep that in mind, too.

I think we need to back up a bit and ask a question again, that being what beliefs do you hold that you are having trouble finding some church that aligns with them.

I was in about the same situation you're years ago. Little by little some of the things I had always been taught or simply accepted about Christianity began to fall completely apart so I went looking for The Truth. It didn't matter to me exactly what my own beliefs were, only that I found the truth. There is only one truth, just as there is only one fact of a matter. Ten thousand opinions, only one fact.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, I'm quite sure that my understanding of the Bible is solid, Bob.

Good to hear.

Are you saying you have never discovered any of your views to be in error and corrected them - in your entire life?

Or rather, I'm quite sure that the understanding of the Bible which countless scholars have, and from whom I draw my own education, is quite solid.

As for my own views, when I say that I think all other views are questionable, I don't mean this in the same way that a very ardent Calvinist would mean this. Rather, what I mean is that whatever the denomination, I can usually spot chinks in the armor of that denomination. This isn't the same as saying, "I think they're utterly wrong, through and through." No, if I thought that, I'd never be the ecumenical Trinitarian that I attempt to be.

But whatever the case, thanks for your input.

Certainly we all agree that there is some truth in every denomination. That is the easy part.

 

[BobRyan]

I think we need to back up a bit and ask a question again, that being what beliefs do you hold that you are having trouble finding some church that aligns with them.

I was in about the same situation you're years ago. Little by little some of the things I had always been taught or simply accepted about Christianity began to fall completely apart so I went looking for The Truth

It appears the OP author has never made any changes at all in his views. Perhaps he is supposing he always had it spot on. An interesting case to be sure.

. It didn't matter to me exactly what my own beliefs were, only that I found the truth. There is only one truth, just as there is only one fact of a matter. Ten thousand opinions, only one fact.

good point

 

[BobRyan]

The churches that I used to attend in the past wouldn't put up with me now (e.g. Southern Baptist, or Christian Church/Church of Christ, etc.)

would you mind providing some sort of "example" of why Southern Baptists would not "put up with your views"??

BTW you say "wouldn't put up with me now" as though your views had changed over time. Is that correct??

 

[PloverWing]

It appears the OP author has never made any changes at all in his views. Perhaps he is supposing he always had it spot on.

To the contrary, it appears to me that the OP author speaks with the groundedness of someone who has spent many years studying philosophy and theology, making changes to his views along the way as needed, and who now is standing on a solid philosophical foundation.

The reading list in his profile is instructive.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good to hear.

Are you saying you have never discovered any of your views to be in error and corrected them - in your entire life?

Bob, it would be more accurate for me to say that for those aspects of the Christian Faith or the Bible which I didn't have a clear understanding earlier on, I have a better but as yet still incomplete understanding now.

In my case, I've had a bit of a different journey in traversing through the Christian faith where I wasn't so much looking for "the right denomination" as I was simply looking for answers as to 'why' I could think any of it to be true. What this means is that while I've done a lot of research, my overall view hasn't shifted in position much from where it began; instead it has grown where it was all along.

For my part, and although I could be wrong, I don't think any of us has enough overall information to know with certainty that our commitments we may each make to a specific denomination's theological statements fully attain to some notion we have of "The Truth." It's enough, though, that we know Christ as Savior and that, from what we're told, He knows us.

So, no. Where the Bible is concerned, I honestly can't say that I've started with any certainties in understanding that I later had to discard. I've questioned the Christian Faith in all of its points ever since the day I first seriously opened a Bible and began to read. Through that, I've avoided any firm commitments to ideas or interpretations of the Bible that I didn't know to be significantly justified and true.

Certainly we all agree that there is some truth in every denomination. That is the easy part.

Yes, that is what I've been saying all along. This is one reason why I always insist on seeing all other Trinitarian Christians as a part of one big (even if boisterous) family.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

would you mind providing some sort of "example" of why Southern Baptists would not "put up with your views"??

Ok. I suppose I could just toss out the one that I've mentioned before in other threads, and that is I don't see any reason to apply the polysemic term "Inerrant" to the Bible. I think this term is not only inaccurate for various critical reasons which I won't get into here, but also superfluous in nature and doesn't comport with the insistent use that many evangelical Christians make of it.

Obviously, if I stepped foot into a SBC Sunday morning Bible study and blurted out, "... but, I don't think the Bible is innerrant," I'd be met with a round of very stern and disturbed gazes.

With that one example alone, and being that you're within the 'baptist' tradition, I think you can see the rub.

BTW you say "wouldn't put up with me now" as though your views had changed over time. Is that correct??

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think we need to back up a bit and ask a question again, that being what beliefs do you hold that you are having trouble finding some church that aligns with them.

I was in about the same situation you're years ago. Little by little some of the things I had always been taught or simply accepted about Christianity began to fall completely apart so I went looking for The Truth. It didn't matter to me exactly what my own beliefs were, only that I found the truth. There is only one truth, just as there is only one fact of a matter. Ten thousand opinions, only one fact.

HT, my internal conflict is an epistemological one rather than a theological one. It's not that I've begun within some one form of Christianity and awoken to deconstruct my my out of it and into some other version of Christianity. No, I've begun from within my own family where notions of science and skepticism reigned.

For me, it's instead been a long journey of trying to find my way through the perspective of someone like Carl Sagan and into the presence of Jesus Christ. ............. See the difference?

Being that I engage the Christian Faith more as an ongoing epistemological journey rather than as an arrival at a destination of Truth in the here and now, I'm essentially existential and evidential in my approach. And in concordance with that view, I need a church that can accommodate me rather than see me as a novice pupil in need of further mentoring.

I also need a church that doesn't throw 1 Corinthians 8:2 at me at the drop of a hat every time I counter with an alternative point of understanding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To the contrary, it appears to me that the OP author speaks with the groundedness of someone who has spent many years studying philosophy and theology, making changes to his views along the way as needed, and who now is standing on a solid philosophical foundation.

The reading list in his profile is instructive.

.............. at least someone out there "gets me." Thanks for the vote of confidence, sister PloverWing!

 

[BobRyan]

Ok. I suppose I could just toss out the one that I've mentioned before in other threads, and that is I don't see any reason to apply the polysemic term "Inerrant" to the Bible. I think this term is not only inaccurate for various critical reasons which I won't get into here

If the Bible is accurate/trustworthy in some places and in error in others - what mechanism do you use to declare a given Bible text to be in error?

 

[BobRyan]

To the contrary, it appears to me that the OP author speaks with the groundedness of someone who has spent many years studying philosophy and theology, making changes to his views along the way as needed,

Which is why I asked him if he has changed his views over time - as to what is correct and what is not