Jesus only gave 1 commandment

[radhead]

I don't believe I ever said that an inspired word of God is the same as innerancy of the text. Are you jumping ten feet to a conclusion here?

Do you even understand what Christian fundamentalism means? I'm not sure you do, at least not the 21st century view of the term. So I find it rather offensive and rather closed minded that you use this an an excuse. I'm sorry, but no. There is a different in traditional, orthodox (small o used for a reason) Christian thought and practice and Christian fundamentalism. And I suggest you either do some homework on the term or you drop it altogether.

I happen to be of the school called Liberal Christianity, in case you were wondering. so that's another reason why I personally find such a use to be a rather veiled attempt to attack without seeming to. As thought you can't be bothered to debate points raised respectfully.

So are you saying that the Bible contains errors.

I assumed you were fundamentalist since that defines most Anglicans in the US that I have met. I assumed that you believed in all the miraculous and magical stories and claims in the New Testament.

Are you aware of what Liberal Christianity means? Because that would mean that you only consider Jesus a great human teacher, without the supernatural/magical elements. I have heard of the United Church of Canada, which I would consider liberal. But since you don't identify with that church...

 

[Targaryen]

So are you saying that the Bible contains errors.

Inspired doesn't disqualify human errors contained within the text. I'm not sure what seems to be the problem with still finding spiritual truths contained within Biblical text even when man can have errors within the text.

I assumed you were fundamentalist since that defines most Anglicans in the US that I have met. I assumed that you believed in all the miraculous and magical stories and claims in the New Testament.

I believe in the traditional interpretations of the faith. Faith is not about this need to superimpose clinical logic to the supernatural, which is only a caveat with those that seek to impose their own thinking onto others. I don't seek conversion to my belief in my dialogue here. That is not my intent. But that doesn't make me a fundamentalist for believing in traditional,orthodox theology within Christianity either. And most American Episcopalians are not fundamentalist. We have conservatives sure, but the modern interpretation of fundamentalist is an extremist. And I don't find many mainstream Christians of any denominational stripe fitting that rather uneducated mold.

Are you aware of what Liberal Christianity means? Because that would mean that you only consider Jesus a great human teacher, without the supernatural/magical elements. I have heard of the United Church of Canada, which I would consider liberal. But since you don't identify with that church...

funny you mention the UCC, I was baptized in the UCC. However, the UCC here in Canada isn't liberal nor conservative, it's a denomination. Mainstream Christians are being more inclusive in general but that does not make a certain denomination liberal or conservative. There are many individuals in the UCC here that are conservative, just as there are many Christians in the Anglican Church of Canada that could be described as moderates or liberal.

What you call Liberal Christianity actually is actually known more as Progressive Christianity, which like as not John Shelby Spong is the poster boy of the movement. I can find many Christians of a liberal,inclusive bent that find that brand of universalism, heretical.

 

[radhead]

Targaryen, would you identify more with Neo-Orthodox?

 

[Anguspure]

Targaryen, would you identify more with Neo-Orthodox?

Why this insistance upon putting people in little boxes? Is this so you can shoot off some sort of stereotypical adhominem argument? Why not simply engage with the discussion before you?

 

[Targaryen]

Targaryen, would you identify more with Neo-Orthodox?

Yes and No, while the theology in Neo-Orthodoxy is very similar, it does not totally describe me. Classical Neo-Orthodoxy is rather silent on topics such as evolution, which would not fit my personal theology well. I reject the concept of Existentialism for instance or Karl Barth's ideas on Neo-Orthodoxy leave me a bit cold.

And I would have to agree with Anguspure, here. There is some things you have left on the table but you have pushed for a deeper understanding of myself, not the faith. STick to the faith.

 

[radhead]

I don't mind being in the "box" of humanist. Because I think humanism the closest thing to pure Christianity and pure Theism. And the most realistic interpretation of the entire Bible.

Don't assume that by my trying to label you I am going to use it as an attack.

 

[Targaryen]

I don't mind being in the "box" of humanist. Because I think humanism the closest thing to pure Christianity and pure Theism. And the most realistic interpretation of the entire Bible.

Don't assume that by my trying to label you I am going to use it as an attack.

I respond to the label Christian, or better yer my screenname better then boxes of any sort. And nor would I attack you on your humanism, however I do find that philosophy to be a strange type of philosophy that is a kinder sounding version of Aleister Crowley's "do as thou wilt" credo. In this case, "believe as you wilt and there shall be no consequences". Or "thou art already a perfected being."

 

[radhead]

By the way, "fundamentalist" is the best word I know to describe a literalist believer. Even words like orthodox and conservative (which you might prefer) can mean different things. And there is debate on what orthodox means because I think it has changed.

 

[radhead]

I respond to the label Christian, or better yer my screenname better then boxes of any sort. And nor would I attack you on your humanism, however I do find that philosophy to be a strange type of philosophy that is a kinder sounding version of Aleister Crowley's "do as thou wilt" credo. In this case, "believe as you wilt and there shall be no consequences". Or "thou art already a perfected being."

No, I am not a follower of any of that. I see humanism as a good term for Social Gospel which focuses on the teachings of Jesus. Any true follower of Christ is primarily a humanist, in other words.

 

[radhead]

In truth there were not very many good choices of labels when I chose Humanist.

 

[Targaryen]

Many Christians practice the Social Gospel, heck one of my strongest influencers in my journey as a Christian, the man doing the Eucharist celebration in my avatar, Archbishop Desmond Tutu is my idea of what a Christian should be like. Fully committed to the faith but that faith generates outward and tries to confront and correct the injustices we see around us.

 

[radhead]

Many Christians practice the Social Gospel, heck one of my strongest influencers in my journey as a Christian, the man doing the Eucharist celebration in my avatar, Archbishop Desmond Tutu is my idea of what a Christian should be like. Fully committed to the faith but that faith generates outward and tries to confront and correct the injustices we see around us.

Right! So can't you see my original point how all of this meaningless debate boils down to the most important thing, which is the Social Gospel.

 

[Anguspure]

By the way, "fundamentalist" is the best word I know to describe a literalist believer. Even words like orthodox and conservative (which you might prefer) can mean different things. And there is debate on what orthodox means because I think it has changed.

The fundamental truth of Xianity fron the very earliest record is the literal crucifixion, death, burial and ressurection of Jesus of Nazareth, as given in the creed written in Pauls letter to the Corinthians: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
The fundamental observance of the faith would perhaps best be outlined in the passage: Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”,
and the overarching assumption of all of the above would be that the person that we are dealing with here is the God defined in the earlier post.

So anybody who bases their belief upon the assertions of this creed could be said to adhere to the fundamentals of the faith. But does this force a person into the "fundamentalist" box? Does it even make a person "religious" to simply beleive such things really happened and are the case? Given that they stand or fall according to the historicity and truth of the account, I would suggest not necessarily.
But certainly I do not think that anybody could be shoe horned into the rather disparaging label of fundamentalist literalist on the grounds of holding to these fundamentals.

 

[Targaryen]

Not exactly. The Social Gospel, is an action we should be doing. But, Chrisitans, specially Protestants, will say but that is not hub of being Christian. In fact, The debate about faith and good works is one of the defining factors of the Reformation itself.

Christainty is about believing that we,as humans are natural sinful, wilful creatures that turn away from God. That we seek after our fallen nature, or as you would've seen in the Neo-Orthodox theology, our propensity to sin. That Christ took on human nature and sacrificed himself to take our sins, our flawed nature on himself to redeem us in the eyes of God. The Social Gospel is about our need to help confront and correct conditions in this world brought on by our capacity for sin, but that action in our view requires faith to be the driver of the action. That it is only through Christ are all things possible.

 

[Anguspure]

No, I am not a follower of any of that. I see humanism as a good term for Social Gospel which focuses on the teachings of Jesus. Any true follower of Christ is primarily a humanist, in other words.

Humanism teaches a materialist form of morality that bears a passing resemblance to the fruit of the Spirit, but because of the philosophical problems of turning an "is" into an "ought" on materialism, lacks coherence.
I for one (and a number of others I know) have little reason in my life to adhere to any social morality except that I do so out of Love and loyalty to the risen One.

 

[radhead]

Anguspure, who are the "twelve" and who are the "apostles" that Jesus appeared to? Why would Paul differentiate them and list them at separate times.

 

[radhead]

Changing the love of God into a "magical belief" system will turn me off for good. As far as that kind of "faith" I would please ask you to place it back into the place in your body out of which I think it came. Very forcefully.

 

[Anguspure]

Anguspure, who are the "twelve" and who are the "apostles" that Jesus appeared to? Why would Paul differentiate them and list them at separate times.

It is well established that this passage did not originate with the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul here is quoting from an early aural creed that uses a common literary device (used else where in the Bible as well) to build upon itself, to underline a point.

 

[Anguspure]

Changing the love of God into a "magical belief" system will turn me off for good. As far as that kind of "faith" I would please ask you to place it back into the place in your body out of which I think it came. Very forcefully.

Yes, the ressurection is a very difficult thing to accept.

If it has ever happened this is the only time in all of history that it has happened. This is why for many of those who observed it, once they had been convinced of what they were observing regarded it as prima face' evidence that this Jesus of Nazareth who died was in fact the person He claimed to be and stood for the things He claimed to, and that He was directly from God.

The truth is, however that as many as trust in Him there are many more who reject Him.

But one of the more unfortunate things is when a person regards Him as simply a good teacher of morals. C S Lewis puts it this way: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

As for "magical", one does well to remember that, as Arthur C Clarke said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." So one should not hasten to use the "magic" label simply because they do not understand how things might of happened.

On the other hand in another sense perhaps it is all a bit "magical" that our Creator might Love us all and desire to give His life so that we might live.

 

[radhead]

It is well established that this passage did not originate with the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul here is quoting from an early aural creed that uses a common literary device (used else where in the Bible as well) to build upon itself, to underline a point.

That made no sense. Can you please answer that again in plain English?

Who were the apostles, and how were they different from the "twelve"?
ANYONE?