What constitutes the act of "Making up one's own Christianity"?

[timothyu]

You're question is a form of red-herring here, Tim. You understand why, don't you?

How so? It says what it says. If it was left at that there would be no need for the religion we have today.

 

[Jonaitis]

No, I think many of us can find at least some minimal, common agreement on the person of Jesus Christ and on some basic traits of the "moral" Christian life, if we work at it.

But for some folks, that's not enough by which to be considered as being in the main of the Christian faith.


I think I agree with you, but there are a number of Christians who will look at either you or me and say, "Gee, guys, we can see you like Jesus, BUT you just don't seem to really be with the program. We think you're making up your own individualized Christianity.............which, uh, which isn't really any real Christianity at all."

THIS is what I'm getting at in my thread. So for instance, if I engage theologians and/or philosophers [even Christian philosophers] whom other Christians have never heard of and with whom they'll very likely have some differences of opinion, then all too often they point the shady finger of heterodoxy and exclaim, "You're making up your own Christianity!!! Repent!!"

Yeah. THIS is what I'm getting at. You see, I don't do this to other Christians with whom I generally disagree with over a whole host of things, depending on which denomination they're in. Yeah, I'll harp on hermeneutics as a discipline that I think can help us engage the Bible on a thoughtful level, but this is by no means me pointing out some kind of heterodox beliefs of others.

But they sure do like to do like to exclude each other and berate each other between denomination, and me. It gets kind of tiresome after a while.

I see what you mean, that's why one's own Christianity is so subjective.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How so? It says what it says. If it was left at that there would be no need for the religion we have today.

....right. Your question says what it says but it doesn't hit at the locus of what I was stating and inquiring about in my previous questions.

IOW. Nothing that I've said has anything to do with there being a "need" for plural intepretations. I said no such thing, my friend.

No, my point is that where the theological ontology of the "Kingdom of God" is concerned, there hasn't been perfect concordance in definition among Christians for this concept, nor has there been a common recognition among them over 2,000 years resulting in the clear telos of "the Kingdom." We can see that the way Christians have often treated each other's beliefs historically, both socially and politically, belies the idea that we all easily arrive on the same conceptual page where the seeming concepts in the bible are to be understood and/or applied.

And so, sometimes our individual and group affirmations about ideas in the Christian faith end up being applied in real time as forms of badgering, whether verbally or (sadly enough) physically.

What is needed is some epistemic humility as we attempt to affirm our individual and group interpretations of both the bible and our faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see what you mean, that's why one's own Christianity is so subjective.

Yes. But be careful in saying that. The "Uber-Objective" Watchers are watching.

 

[timothyu]

What is needed is some epistemic humility as we attempt to affirm our individual and group interpretations of both the bible and our faith.

Possibly so but my point was why even interpret something that needs no interpretation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Possibly so but my point was why even interpret something that needs no interpretation.

I see. You and I have a different understanding about what "interpretation" is. I'm going with the definition(s) that come in accordance with the field of Hermeneutics and Communication Theory. I assume you have a different center of sources for yours.

But, that's what it is. The positive aspect here is that I do agree with you in that there are some concepts in the biblical writings that seem like they should be clear to all of us. It's just that while you and I may actually agree on how to define "the Kingdom," not everyone else will.

 

[timothyu]

It's just that while you and I may actually agree on how to define "the Kingdom," not everyone else will.

Well to my thinking even if you left that 'definition' out is is still clear from that that God is returning to make sure we no longer impose our will upon each other, His being the only one allowed. Interestingly enough that was Jesus' main message

 

[eleos1954]

Wouldn't the quality of this comparison be contingent upon how well we understand the Word as well as whether or not what we think is 'the Word' is the Word?

The point is .... scripture is the truth ... and we grow in our knowledge and understanding as we study it ... it is a blessing to study it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The point is .... scripture is the truth ... and we grow in our knowledge and understanding as we study it ... it is a blessing to study it.

You see the problem there, though, don't you?