Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2012 10:19:52 GMT -5
Our God is a consuming fire according to the writer to the Hebrews.
God is a Spirit, likened by our Lord to the wind.
Water has already been covered.
All three to me are singular substances with a plural existence, and that is the lesson I get to help me understand the Being of my God. Notice I said, "help." After a lifetime, I cannot say I fully understand HIS Being even yet, but much better than when I was a child.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 7, 2012 10:20:05 GMT -5
What, IMO, the question posted as the title of this thread is ESPECIALLY relevant given the volatile nature of the word 'cult.' The scholar could make the case that those who believe it is a cult are applying the present-day meaning of the word -- and then compare the facts about the group against the 'cult' perception. I think the conclusion that you're leaping to is that Mr. Irvine will not apply the facts of the group to the, in some minds, 'cult' perception of the group. But how can you know that? You've requested that he divulge his own opinion/insights on the question he posed... but why should he do so in advance of publishing his paper? To do so would only serve to pollute his research. I have no problem with the thread title. My issues were with the definition of the word cult presented in the first post, and with various comments made in posts as we have gone along. I have requested that Grey elucidate on the definition of 'cult' that he would use in his research, his terms of reference and his thesis proposal. What's the problem with him elaborating on these points? Scholargal prepared a framework and a few questions about the usage of the word 'cult' to which he could easily respond. To date, he has not. I also have no idea what Irvine is researching but I would boldly suggest that if his object is to compare the traits of the group against some populist notion of the word 'cult', as you surmise, then that research would have little merit. That's because I don't think you can pin down what people mean when they use the word 'cult'. It would be necessary to establish a definition within one of the three frameworks described by Scholargal. I could see a comparison against a 'sociological' definition working. A comparison against a 'theological' definition would have racist overtones, in my view, for all the reasons I've already repeated.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 7, 2012 10:27:33 GMT -5
The other problem Irvine Grey will have with his "research" is that I'll immediately jump on anyone who argues that the group is a cult. I've been quite consistent on that. This is going to seriously inhibit him obtaining candid responses if that's what he is trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 7, 2012 10:28:57 GMT -5
Not believing in the Trinity is like saying "I don't believe in the number three." I mean, go count them, man! jetmech probably doesn't believe in the three stooges, either. I do! They have always tickled me down deep in my belly! Here's 2 of them:
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 7, 2012 10:35:12 GMT -5
I always had trouble with the notion that some subscribe to, which is the example that the Trinity/God is like water, it can be steam, liquid or ice - I think it is. One thing in 3 forms. I prefer to see God as like the surname comprising of Father, Son and Spirit. Even that is not a good example. I would appreciate a better one. I've kinda started looking at God, the 3 in 1God, that is, as a royal Kingship...The Father is the reigning King, the Son is His firstborn, the Holy Spirit is the spare...though honestly that doesn't say it very well....maybe the Priesthood of the Jews is more like it, the "chief priest, another who attend the table, another who attend the candlestick, etc."
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 7, 2012 10:43:31 GMT -5
What, IMO, the question posted as the title of this thread is ESPECIALLY relevant given the volatile nature of the word 'cult.' The scholar could make the case that those who believe it is a cult are applying the present-day meaning of the word -- and then compare the facts about the group against the 'cult' perception. I think the conclusion that you're leaping to is that Mr. Irvine will not apply the facts of the group to the, in some minds, 'cult' perception of the group. But how can you know that? You've requested that he divulge his own opinion/insights on the question he posed... but why should he do so in advance of publishing his paper? To do so would only serve to pollute his research. I have no problem with the thread title. My issues were with the definition of the word cult presented in the first post, and with various comments made in posts as we have gone along. I have requested that Grey elucidate on the definition of 'cult' that he would use in his research, his terms of reference and his thesis proposal. What's the problem with him elaborating on these points? Scholargal prepared a framework and a few questions about the usage of the word 'cult' to which he could easily respond. To date, he has not. I also have no idea what Irvine is researching but I would boldly suggest that if his object is to compare the traits of the group against some populist notion of the word 'cult', as you surmise, then that research would have little merit. That's because I don't think you can pin down what people mean when they use the word 'cult'. It would be necessary to establish a definition within one of the three frameworks described by Scholargal. I could see a comparison against a 'sociological' definition working. A comparison against a 'theological' definition would have racist overtones, in my view, for all the reasons I've already repeated. What, let us face up to your bottom line which is the erasure of the term cult. Well I am afraid that is not your call! I am unsure as to what qualifies you to state that if I follow a particular line 'then that research would have little merit'! If it is necessary to use this terminolgy in my research I will use it objectively. I would prefer not to use the term but then that will depend on the evidence at emerges. Your suggestion that 'A comparison against a 'theological' definition would have racist overtones' is hyperbole at best!
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 7, 2012 10:49:13 GMT -5
The other problem Irvine Grey will have with his "research" is that I'll immediately jump on anyone who argues that the group is a cult. I've been quite consistent on that. This is going to seriously inhibit him obtaining candid responses if that's what he is trying to do. Instead of jumping over anyone who suggests that the movement is a cult maybe you would lay out the reasons why you believe it is not a cult, sociologically or theologically and maybe this will bring a response and a meaningful dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 7, 2012 10:54:41 GMT -5
What, IMO, the question posted as the title of this thread is ESPECIALLY relevant given the volatile nature of the word 'cult.' The scholar could make the case that those who believe it is a cult are applying the present-day meaning of the word -- and then compare the facts about the group against the 'cult' perception. I think the conclusion that you're leaping to is that Mr. Irvine will not apply the facts of the group to the, in some minds, 'cult' perception of the group. But how can you know that? You've requested that he divulge his own opinion/insights on the question he posed... but why should he do so in advance of publishing his paper? To do so would only serve to pollute his research. I have no problem with the thread title. My issues were with the definition of the word cult presented in the first post, and with various comments made in posts as we have gone along. I have requested that Grey elucidate on the definition of 'cult' that he would use in his research, his terms of reference and his thesis proposal. What's the problem with him elaborating on these points? Scholargal prepared a framework and a few questions about the usage of the word 'cult' to which he could easily respond. To date, he has not. I also have no idea what Irvine is researching but I would boldly suggest that if his object is to compare the traits of the group against some populist notion of the word 'cult', as you surmise, then that research would have little merit. That's because I don't think you can pin down what people mean when they use the word 'cult'. It would be necessary to establish a definition within one of the three frameworks described by Scholargal. I could see a comparison against a 'sociological' definition working. A comparison against a 'theological' definition would have racist overtones, in my view, for all the reasons I've already repeated. Has it ever occurred to you What, that Mr. Irvine wants people that are posting to "define" cult in their own terms as it relates to the fellowship in their experiences? Seems logical IF he's wanting candid answers. As he has said, there's been those who have asked if the fellowship is a cult and I think there was also mentioned that people in the fellowship think there are cult-like qualities and thus they are wondering IF the fellowship is a cult...otherwords people cannot ascertain for themselves just exactly what the fellowship is... And yes, we can read plenty on the websites that the fellowship is nothing more then an harmless cult.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 7, 2012 11:11:34 GMT -5
Not believing in the Trinity is like saying "I don't believe in the number three." I mean, go count them, man! Or it might be the belief that this doctrine was developed as the early church tried to reconcile Jewish monotheism in the scriptures with the need to portray Jesus as divine.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 7, 2012 11:12:17 GMT -5
I have no problem with the thread title. My issues were with the definition of the word cult presented in the first post, and with various comments made in posts as we have gone along. I have requested that Grey elucidate on the definition of 'cult' that he would use in his research, his terms of reference and his thesis proposal. What's the problem with him elaborating on these points? Scholargal prepared a framework and a few questions about the usage of the word 'cult' to which he could easily respond. To date, he has not. I also have no idea what Irvine is researching but I would boldly suggest that if his object is to compare the traits of the group against some populist notion of the word 'cult', as you surmise, then that research would have little merit. That's because I don't think you can pin down what people mean when they use the word 'cult'. It would be necessary to establish a definition within one of the three frameworks described by Scholargal. I could see a comparison against a 'sociological' definition working. A comparison against a 'theological' definition would have racist overtones, in my view, for all the reasons I've already repeated. What, let us face up to your bottom line which is the erasure of the term cult. Let's face up to something I've actually said instead of rephrasing it first. As I never said that, no, I guess not. Ah, I can type. What other qualifications are needed around here? By now I've figured out that you're an old line Baptist, so it will be what it will be. And to be fair to you, as august a publication as the recent ESV Bible still uses the archaic theological definition of the word 'cult' to malign JWs and Mormons. If that is the process that you will also use, then inevitably you will find the f&w to be a cult simply because they are not overtly Trinitarian. Such a definition of the word 'cult' exists only to perpetuate and endorse one belief system over another, and marginalize anything else. The belief system of those who are in power controls academia and controls the language. In this day and age mainstream Christianity and its elite have had to relinquish the power they once had, and that kind of definition is archaic and obsolete. Except possibly in the ivory towers of Evangelicals here and there, and on the web pages of the Counter Cult Movement. Words and the structure of language shapes meaning and attitudes. That's why people will insist they are 'pro-life' instead of 'anti-abortion'. In academic inquiry it's best to use neutral language, and this is why many faculties recommend the term 'new religious movements' instead of the pejorative 'cult'.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 7, 2012 11:17:45 GMT -5
The other problem Irvine Grey will have with his "research" is that I'll immediately jump on anyone who argues that the group is a cult. I've been quite consistent on that. This is going to seriously inhibit him obtaining candid responses if that's what he is trying to do. Instead of jumping over anyone who suggests that the movement is a cult maybe you would lay out the reasons why you believe it is not a cult, sociologically or theologically and maybe this will bring a response and a meaningful dialogue. What I do exactly is post the essay you saw in reply #1. Quite consistently. That's what I meant by jumping on people.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 7, 2012 11:28:19 GMT -5
I have no problem with the thread title. My issues were with the definition of the word cult presented in the first post, and with various comments made in posts as we have gone along. I have requested that Grey elucidate on the definition of 'cult' that he would use in his research, his terms of reference and his thesis proposal. What's the problem with him elaborating on these points? Scholargal prepared a framework and a few questions about the usage of the word 'cult' to which he could easily respond. To date, he has not. I also have no idea what Irvine is researching but I would boldly suggest that if his object is to compare the traits of the group against some populist notion of the word 'cult', as you surmise, then that research would have little merit. That's because I don't think you can pin down what people mean when they use the word 'cult'. It would be necessary to establish a definition within one of the three frameworks described by Scholargal. I could see a comparison against a 'sociological' definition working. A comparison against a 'theological' definition would have racist overtones, in my view, for all the reasons I've already repeated. Has it ever occurred to you What, that Mr. Irvine wants people that are posting to "define" cult in their own terms as it relates to the fellowship in their experiences? Seems logical IF he's wanting candid answers. As he has said, there's been those who have asked if the fellowship is a cult and I think there was also mentioned that people in the fellowship think there are cult-like qualities and thus they are wondering IF the fellowship is a cult...otherwords people cannot ascertain for themselves just exactly what the fellowship is... And yes, we can read plenty on the websites that the fellowship is nothing more then an harmless cult. Well, most people clearly aren't thinking 'harmless cult' when they use the word. I believe posters undermine their arguments about some of the actual harmful practices of the group when they resort to 'name calling'. It just heats up the rhetoric and accomplishes nothing. If Mr. Grey wishes to explore the vicissitudes of anger and hurt in people's reactions to the group then a clarion call around the word 'cult' on a public discussion forum will not serve him well. Maybe he could design a questionnaire and interview process and conduct that in private. That way his respondents won't be intimidated by the likes of me.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 7, 2012 11:41:21 GMT -5
What, it seems so strange to me that you are so set on this issue of calling the fellowship a cult in possibility terms when you have always been free to accept people look at things different and their experiences are different then yours and you've never argued anything before this as if though it MUST be the way you see? I'm not understanding you here...it just does not stack up with your other responses to people who believe adversely to your belief!
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 7, 2012 12:59:53 GMT -5
What, let us face up to your bottom line which is the erasure of the term cult. By now I've figured out that you're an old line Baptist, so it will be what it will be. And to be fair to you, as august a publication as the recent ESV Bible still uses the archaic theological definition of the word 'cult' to malign JWs and Mormons. If that is the process that you will also use, then inevitably you will find the f&w to be a cult simply because they are not overtly Trinitarian. Personal and judgemental - I need say no more!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 7, 2012 13:04:27 GMT -5
By now I've figured out that you're an old line Baptist, so it will be what it will be. And to be fair to you, as august a publication as the recent ESV Bible still uses the archaic theological definition of the word 'cult' to malign JWs and Mormons. If that is the process that you will also use, then inevitably you will find the f&w to be a cult simply because they are not overtly Trinitarian. Personal and judgemental - I need say no more! You mean by calling you an "Old line Baptist"? Hey, that's not all bad. I didn't mean it as an insult. I've certainly been called worse.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 7, 2012 13:12:51 GMT -5
What, it seems so strange to me that you are so set on this issue of calling the fellowship a cult in possibility terms when you have always been free to accept people look at things different and their experiences are different then yours and you've never argued anything before this as if though it MUST be the way you see? I'm not understanding you here...it just does not stack up with your other responses to people who believe adversely to your belief! I prefer people not call names and use a civil level of discourse when making their points. You can put lipstick on the pig and post a pseudo-academic checklist of what makes a group a cult or not, but it still comes down to calling names. Most of the checklists that we do see posted on TMB from time to time are heavily biased toward their kind of theology and you can see right through them. And I usually note my objection to the process when that occurs. Now, if someone were to post a definition and checklist of the word 'cult' along objective sociological lines I could see some validity in that kind of examination. But people generally just sling around the word without any kind of definition or framework. Dennis Jacobsen's post would be an exception because he established a fairly clear definition of what he meant by the word. But generally people don't do that, and the overriding subtext in such posts is "I hate the friends" or "I hate the workers". It's counter productive. Anyway, I am only posting my opinions on this. People will do what they do, and that's cool.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 8, 2012 8:18:37 GMT -5
By now I've figured out that you're an old line Baptist, so it will be what it will be. And to be fair to you, as august a publication as the recent ESV Bible still uses the archaic theological definition of the word 'cult' to malign JWs and Mormons. If that is the process that you will also use, then inevitably you will find the f&w to be a cult simply because they are not overtly Trinitarian. If I were to base my theological conclusions on 'old line Baptist' views such an academic study would never get past the internal and external examiners, neither, I am sure are likely to be Baptists. My conclusions wll be based on biblical theology and I may even use the ESV!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 8, 2012 12:18:30 GMT -5
I beg to differ. In fact Christianity has articulated the mother of all cult-busters: The salvation that is a free gift of God. That the people of mainstream Christianity are coopted by various latent and ambient political machinery is a separate issue from the theological orthodoxy (and I mean orthodoxy) of Christianity proper. Agreed. Presently I'm so fed up with the political-religious complex of my country I would rejoice to learn the worst thing my religion community did was deny a blood transfusion to a terminal patient. But of course, such a glaring display of moral turbidity would determine her to be as spiritually bankrupt as her contemporaries. Perhaps I should refrain from commenting at all. 2/3 of agreement on a post of mine these days seems like more than I could ask for. At the same time it can be invigorating to swim upstream so I'm not complaining here. But in terms of your comment on the first part, I don't really disagree. When we begin to pull apart the sayings and teachings of Jesus into individual things my cynicism and negativity rapidly disappears. I suppose that unlike you I do not equate orthodoxy with the essential Christ. If the revelation of JC isn't essential to salvation, what would you propose it is? In the manner you personally understand salvation, how is JC essential to it or not? Orthodoxy has layered on all kinds of exclusive trappings, most notably the Trinity doctrine. I like to attend (occasionally) one particular church in our local community but the first thing I read on their web site is this: We believe the following statements to be true as affirmed in scripture and embraced by God’s people through the years:
God in Trinity
God exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal and are one God. Well actually I don't, but I'm happy to worship God in your church. Fortunately, no-one seems to care that I might dissent on one or two points of doctrine, so I appreciate them letting me work out my own salvation. The point of this is that doctrine itself can foster the "us versus them" attitudes I disdain. That is necessary and inherent to establishing boundaries of any sort, appropriate where it is. We do both agree that "co-opting by various latent and ambient political machinery" is at work in the churches and in religion in general. The extent to which this has permeated or corrupted orthodox doctrine is a difficult and arguable point, and where we appear to disagree. But I won't lay claim to a definite answer on that one. If by that you mean you believe the whole story of Jesus may have been concocted, I would suggest the truth is getting the better of those liars in their failing to anticipate that people would actually put faith in God for redeemption from this terrestrial, political cesspool. Satan cannot undo the central theme of political liberation that comprises and characterizes the heart of the Gospel and the souls of believers, he must rely upon diversions and cooptions. There is an essential element within orthodoxy that is incorruptible and many people do lay claim to it and that is good. The problem is that many groups and many people claim to have "perfect knowledge". No one has "perfect knowledge", neither orthodoxy, neither the friends and workers. No doubt there are "Christians" who are putting their watery confidence in a purported, perfect knowledge and have proceeded to mislead and offend. Christianity does not teach we have perfect knowledge, but that we have been taken into the confidence of Him who does. When we begin to pull apart the various omnibus editions of doctrine that exist around us, there are good elements and bad. We shouldn't just accept everything that is presented to us by our church of choice. But for some reason oftentimes a particular party needs to believe that their knowledge, their set of doctrine, is the perfect and right way. I would venture that the rigid acceptance of the Trinity doctrine is sometimes used to point away from Christ as our Redeemer. Your criticism of doctrine appears to largely turn upon occasions where it's status in relationship to salvation is pecuninary, as if an idea could be a commodity. This could reflect spiritual immaturity or a deeper spiritual problem, either within the individual or a whole community. In these situations the articulation of sound doctrine would not be the culprit but rather the lack of it, and/or the imposition of false ones. The is not to say the trinity doctrine is right or wrong, but we should feel free to doubt it, be skeptical about it, and accept or not accept pieces of it as new information comes to light. Belief in the Trinity doctrine is not essential to salvation as some would think. Nor is it essential to not believe that doctrine. For some reason the human animal tends to polarize into camps around points of doctrine, and they soon begin to act like red and black ants, substituting points of doctrine for skin colour. Most of these doctrinal questions, I'm now convinced, simply do not matter. I think they do. My sympathy for your wary view of doctrine is bounded by the extent the popular gospel has been preached by ministers who except and encourage the "pecuinary conversion", the idea you can trade in or modify your beliefs in exhange for salvation, just exactly as we are trained to think and survive in the world. In the F&W, it is called "Making your choice". Salvation may indeed involve choices but it must never be thought of as a commodity, rather a living relationship with the Truth.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 8, 2012 12:43:25 GMT -5
By now I've figured out that you're an old line Baptist, so it will be what it will be. And to be fair to you, as august a publication as the recent ESV Bible still uses the archaic theological definition of the word 'cult' to malign JWs and Mormons. If that is the process that you will also use, then inevitably you will find the f&w to be a cult simply because they are not overtly Trinitarian. If I were to base my theological conclusions on 'old line Baptist' views such an academic study would never get past the internal and external examiners, neither, I am sure are likely to be Baptists. My conclusions wll be based on biblical theology and I may even use the ESV! We may be using different definitions of 'old line Baptist'. There are lots of 'old line Baptists' on that ESV editorial board. If you have the ESV study Bible, turn to page 2631 and you'll find the same kind of exclusivist, marginalizing definition of culthood that I think you might argue for. I have been surprised to learn while pursuing this thread that that kind of thinking still exists in the academic world, but unfortunately, in the field of religious studies, it does.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 8, 2012 13:04:51 GMT -5
In this conversation you seem to equate orthodoxy with essential teachings of Jesus. I don't. Orthodoxy is Jesus PLUS. What has been added is the Trinity doctrine. In spite of that, the teachings of Jesus do get through, as you indicate. But even if you don't agree with my point about the Trinity doctrine being a superfluous extra, it is the case that belief, as it is taught or understood, is always subject to interpretation. There is no pure understanding of God's intention or Will. I'm skeptical of authorities who claim to have what I call "perfect knowledge". You've taken my statements rather further than I meant. Perhaps I should refrain from commenting at all. 2/3 of agreement on a post of mine these days seems like more than I could ask for. At the same time it can be invigorating to swim upstream so I'm not complaining here. But in terms of your comment on the first part, I don't really disagree. When we begin to pull apart the sayings and teachings of Jesus into individual things my cynicism and negativity rapidly disappears. I suppose that unlike you I do not equate orthodoxy with the essential Christ. If the revelation of JC isn't essential to salvation, what would you propose it is? In the manner you personally understand salvation, how is JC essential to it or not? It is essential for those who have received a revelation. But that revelation can operate inside or outside of orthodoxy. Didn't mean that at all. Again, orthodoxy and "the story of Jesus" are two independent, but overlapping concepts. The deception is thinking that the knowledge you possess is perfect. It never is. False doctrine is one person's judgement of another person's beliefs. Doctrine can never be shown to be "false" in any objective sense. You either believe something or you don't. My concern with doctrine is that one's beliefs can never be fully trusted. If we "fully trust" our beliefs, if we are completely sure about what we know, then we stop growing as a result. My "wary view" isn't about the body of doctrine that exists as expounded by Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Wesley or even William Irvine. My wariness relates to how people embrace doctrine and belief, as if they have all the answers to the big questions, as a result.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 8, 2012 13:21:26 GMT -5
In this conversation you seem to equate orthodoxy with essential teachings of Jesus. I don't. Orthodoxy is Jesus PLUS. What has been added is the Trinity doctrine. In spite of that, the teachings of Jesus do get through, as you indicate. But even if you don't agree with my point about the Trinity doctrine being a superfluous extra, it is the case that belief, as it is taught or understood, is always subject to interpretation. There is no pure understanding of God's intention or Will. I'm skeptical of authorities who claim to have what I call "perfect knowledge". You've taken my statements rather further than I meant. If the revelation of JC isn't essential to salvation, what would you propose it is? In the manner you personally understand salvation, how is JC essential to it or not? It is essential for those who have received a revelation. But that revelation can operate inside or outside of orthodoxy. Didn't mean that at all. Again, orthodoxy and "the story of Jesus" are two independent, but overlapping concepts. The deception is thinking that the knowledge you possess is perfect. It never is. False doctrine is one person's judgement of another person's beliefs. Doctrine can never be shown to be "false" in any objective sense. You either believe something or you don't. I think they do. My sympathy for your wary view of doctrine is bounded by the extent the popular gospel has been preached by ministers who except and encourage the "pecuinary conversion", the idea you can trade in or modify your beliefs in exchange for salvation, just exactly as we are trained to think and survive in the world. In the F&W, it is called "Making your choice". Salvation may indeed involve choices but it must never be thought of as a commodity, rather a living relationship with the Truth. From your perspective, What you will more than likely reject the validity of Jesus' claim, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'. Here is an absolute and when someone tells you that they believe there are other ways to God other than through Jesus Christ you can not deem that as a false teaching?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 8, 2012 13:53:47 GMT -5
Some research this afternoon on this subject - Here is a link to an interesting work on how mainstream Christianity perceives "cults". It's only a partial extract on Google Scholar, but enough to be of interest. books.google.ca/books?id=G4Zra4oDWQIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falseHere is another link which provides a sociological and somewhat objective analysis of cult dynamics. www.xjw.com/whatcult.htmlBut it is very difficult to tease out abherrant or destructive group influences from conventional group dynamics. One way to distinguish is to consider whether an influence is "conforming" or "compliant". A conforming influence is accepted willingly whereas as compliant influence involves co-ercion. The difference is often in the view of the subject of the influence. More here - mailer.fsu.edu/~slosh/Guide7.html#CONFORMITY-COMPLIANCE
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 8, 2012 14:01:41 GMT -5
In this conversation you seem to equate orthodoxy with essential teachings of Jesus. I don't. Orthodoxy is Jesus PLUS. What has been added is the Trinity doctrine. In spite of that, the teachings of Jesus do get through, as you indicate. But even if you don't agree with my point about the Trinity doctrine being a superfluous extra, it is the case that belief, as it is taught or understood, is always subject to interpretation. There is no pure understanding of God's intention or Will. I'm skeptical of authorities who claim to have what I call "perfect knowledge". You've taken my statements rather further than I meant. It is essential for those who have received a revelation. But that revelation can operate inside or outside of orthodoxy. Didn't mean that at all. Again, orthodoxy and "the story of Jesus" are two independent, but overlapping concepts. The deception is thinking that the knowledge you possess is perfect. It never is. False doctrine is one person's judgement of another person's beliefs. Doctrine can never be shown to be "false" in any objective sense. You either believe something or you don't. I think they do. My sympathy for your wary view of doctrine is bounded by the extent the popular gospel has been preached by ministers who except and encourage the "pecuinary conversion", the idea you can trade in or modify your beliefs in exchange for salvation, just exactly as we are trained to think and survive in the world. In the F&W, it is called "Making your choice". Salvation may indeed involve choices but it must never be thought of as a commodity, rather a living relationship with the Truth. From your perspective, What you will more than likely reject the validity of Jesus' claim, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'. Here is an absolute and when someone tells you that they believe there are other ways to God other than through Jesus Christ you can not deem that as a false teaching? No I don't reject Jesus claim and do believe it. But I do reject the idea that non-believers of that statement are false in their beliefs. Any non-falsifiable doctrine sincerely presented and internally consistent is never false.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jan 8, 2012 19:09:54 GMT -5
The Godhead is a term sometimes used.- anne said Sure do love this verse, saying what you mentioned, St. Anne. For in him (Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Collosian 2:9 - nothing to add or take away Alvin Missed this earlier. Thanks for sharing that thought.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 8, 2012 21:34:39 GMT -5
In this conversation you seem to equate orthodoxy with essential teachings of Jesus. I don't. Orthodoxy is Jesus PLUS. That is a common way to refer to a cult. Salvation by Jesus alone makes for a lonely Jesus as I see it. While I do not adhere to Calvin's exact view of predestination, I prefer to refer to the sovereign grace and election of our Lord. What has been added is the Trinity doctrine. In spite of that, the teachings of Jesus do get through, as you indicate. You must be referring to some offensive minutia that attends the Nicene creed. If a man should happen to be a universal savior of mankind, he should also be God. But even if you don't agree with my point about the Trinity doctrine being a superfluous extra, it is the case that belief, as it is taught or understood, is always subject to interpretation. There is no pure understanding of God's intention or Will. I'm skeptical of authorities who claim to have what I call "perfect knowledge". You've taken my statements rather further than I meant. I understand your wariness of the manner in which some people hide behind doctrine, neither owning it themselves but using it as a club upon others. On the other hand, you seem to be taking a "scorched-earth" policy in assailing the value of doctrine. Some people have been held spiritually captive to wrong ideas and have been spiritually freed upon exchanging them for right ones. If the revelation of JC isn't essential to salvation, what would you propose it is? In the manner you personally understand salvation, how is JC essential to it or not? It is essential for those who have received a revelation. But that revelation can operate inside or outside of orthodoxy. Does that mean that you think it is presumptuous and rather unnecessary to spread the story (revelation) of Jesus abroad? Didn't mean that at all. Again, orthodoxy and "the story of Jesus" are two independent, but overlapping concepts. That is reductive. Surely it is more to the point to say what is sometimes passed off as being orthodox ain't. The deception is thinking that the knowledge you possess is perfect. It never is. But Christian behavior and identity aren't dependent upon total knowledge, but a knowledge that is perfect respecting the matter or moment at hand. To deny this would be to deny the relationship between the holy spirit and believers. False doctrine is one person's judgement of another person's beliefs. Doctrine can never be shown to be "false" in any objective sense. You either believe something or you don't. Really? It wouldn't be too very difficult to show the absurdity of your doctrines if they were drawn to their logical conclusions. Many doctrines are self-evidently good and others equally bad. Just because the church has given Christianity a mixed palette of doctrines doesn't mean that correct doctrine and orthodoxy can not faithfully express the good true and beautiful. My concern with doctrine is that one's beliefs can never be fully trusted. If we "fully trust" our beliefs, if we are completely sure about what we know, then we stop growing as a result. I see it quite differently. How can we grow, if we do NOT trust our present beliefs? What actually impedes growth is when we pretend to believe things we don't, in order not to believe something else, especially something about ourselves personally. My "wary view" isn't about the body of doctrine that exists as expounded by Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Wesley or even William Irvine. My wariness relates to how people embrace doctrine and belief, as if they have all the answers to the big questions, as a result. I nominate you to write the 2012 Guy Noir stories of . . . Prarie Home Companion!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 9, 2012 9:42:22 GMT -5
In this conversation you seem to equate orthodoxy with essential teachings of Jesus. I don't. Orthodoxy is Jesus PLUS. That is a common way to refer to a cult. Salvation by Jesus alone makes for a lonely Jesus as I see it. While I do not adhere to Calvin's exact view of predestination, I prefer to refer to the sovereign grace and election of our Lord. You must be referring to some offensive minutia that attends the Nicene creed. If a man should happen to be a universal savior of mankind, he should also be God. I understand your wariness of the manner in which some people hide behind doctrine, neither owning it themselves but using it as a club upon others. On the other hand, you seem to be taking a "scorched-earth" policy in assailing the value of doctrine. Some people have been held spiritually captive to wrong ideas and have been spiritually freed upon exchanging them for right ones. Does that mean that you think it is presumptuous and rather unnecessary to spread the story (revelation) of Jesus abroad? That is reductive. Surely it is more to the point to say what is sometimes passed off as being orthodox ain't. But Christian behavior and identity aren't dependent upon total knowledge, but a knowledge that is perfect respecting the matter or moment at hand. To deny this would be to deny the relationship between the holy spirit and believers. Really? It wouldn't be too very difficult to show the absurdity of your doctrines if they were drawn to their logical conclusions. Many doctrines are self-evidently good and others equally bad. Just because the church has given Christianity a mixed palette of doctrines doesn't mean that correct doctrine and orthodoxy can not faithfully express the good true and beautiful. I see it quite differently. How can we grow, if we do NOT trust our present beliefs? What actually impedes growth is when we pretend to believe things we don't, in order not to believe something else, especially something about ourselves personally. My "wary view" isn't about the body of doctrine that exists as expounded by Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Wesley or even William Irvine. My wariness relates to how people embrace doctrine and belief, as if they have all the answers to the big questions, as a result. I nominate you to write the 2012 Guy Noir stories of . . . Prarie Home Companion! The Nicene Creed, and please allow me to add in the Chalcedonian, are entirely the product of minutiae and petty squabbling. You are making me think that you haven't properly read the the history of these things, and the number of lives that were lost, to say nothing of reputations just on the three words "begotten, not made". And you seem also to be blissfully unaware of the bloodiness attendant upon the spread of Christianity, which can not be so easily teased out as only a product of human shortcoming and politics. Killing is rather closely tied in to doctrine, because it can be argued that the value of a human life is nothing when compared to eternal damnation, justifying punishment of those who do not believe. All that messy killing stuff was always fully supported by doctrine, because we Christians clearly knew that we had God on our side, and not on their side. The problem with doctrine has always been, as Irvine Grey inadvertently attested to above, a complete lack of respect or acceptance of the idea that there is value in other cultures and other belief systems. Hear the words of the missionary, "Jesus, begotten, not created, co-equal with God, is the only door; discard any other notion at the altar and submit to His Will, as I define it, I come in peace, please pay no attention to the swordsman slightly behind me and to my left". This does not speak to the Christ within, in my view. The "good true and beautiful" stand apart from doctrine in my view; I refer you to one William James who argues that spiritual understanding has much more to do with experience than it does with doctrine. And to me, poetic knowledge always transcends any bounded, closed system of doctrine. The Psalms and the Gospels are not doctrine; but rather poetic knowledge, open, limitless and the words close around different ideas, thoughts and feelings at different times. They blend with experience to uplift and educate man on a daily basis. Meanwhile doctrine closes around specific ideas; it's one man's view about a particular issue or question, and may be right or wrong, but more often, unverifiable and often irrelevant. Of course, doctrine has "value" in the same way that any idea thoughtfully considered has value. I've read a lot of doctrine; it's just ideas, nothing more, nothing less. Doctrine only has value when you internalize it, and incorporate it into your own knowledge and beliefs. People will say they believe in the Trinity doctrine and yet they don't even "know" it and can't explain it properly. The problem with doctrine today is that it has become a substitute for the ineffable, a diversion from the awe and terror in knowing ourselves and our Maker, and a lulling into complacency.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 9, 2012 11:58:00 GMT -5
Yesterday at 2:04pm, what wrote:What has been added is the Trinity doctrine. In spite of that, the teachings of Jesus do get through, as you indicate.
You must be referring to some offensive minutia that attends the Nicene creed. If a man should happen to be a universal savior of mankind, he should also be God
I've felt for some length of time that ONLY the CREATOR could redeem His creation or creature! One certainly cannot redeem someone else...man cannot redeem his brother, nephew, or female family members...so who can it be OF course, it has to be the one who made us as he did and gave us the capibility to make up our own minds and HE must be the one who pays for that creation, eh? I think Rational gave me that idea and I don't find that idea too far out of bounds to be reality.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 9, 2012 22:38:47 GMT -5
That is a common way to refer to a cult. Salvation by Jesus alone makes for a lonely Jesus as I see it. While I do not adhere to Calvin's exact view of predestination, I prefer to refer to the sovereign grace and election of our Lord. You must be referring to some offensive minutia that attends the Nicene creed. If a man should happen to be a universal savior of mankind, he should also be God. I understand your wariness of the manner in which some people hide behind doctrine, neither owning it themselves but using it as a club upon others. On the other hand, you seem to be taking a "scorched-earth" policy in assailing the value of doctrine. Some people have been held spiritually captive to wrong ideas and have been spiritually freed upon exchanging them for right ones. Does that mean that you think it is presumptuous and rather unnecessary to spread the story (revelation) of Jesus abroad? That is reductive. Surely it is more to the point to say what is sometimes passed off as being orthodox ain't. But Christian behavior and identity aren't dependent upon total knowledge, but a knowledge that is perfect respecting the matter or moment at hand. To deny this would be to deny the relationship between the holy spirit and believers. Really? It wouldn't be too very difficult to show the absurdity of your doctrines if they were drawn to their logical conclusions. Many doctrines are self-evidently good and others equally bad. Just because the church has given Christianity a mixed palette of doctrines doesn't mean that correct doctrine and orthodoxy can not faithfully express the good true and beautiful. I see it quite differently. How can we grow, if we do NOT trust our present beliefs? What actually impedes growth is when we pretend to believe things we don't, in order not to believe something else, especially something about ourselves personally. I nominate you to write the 2012 Guy Noir stories of . . . Prarie Home Companion! The Nicene Creed, and please allow me to add in the Chalcedonian, are entirely the product of minutiae and petty squabbling. You are making me think that you haven't properly read the the history of these things, and the number of lives that were lost, to say nothing of reputations just on the three words "begotten, not made". No, I'm not well read in this area, or any other. Life tends to get in the way, and my writing addiction. And you seem also to be blissfully unaware of the bloodiness attendant upon the spread of Christianity, which can not be so easily teased out as only a product of human shortcoming and politics. Well yes and no. I'm an certain removed from it no matter how much I read, simply for existing in another time and place. But I know. I'm not ignorant of how perverse religious people can be. Killing is rather closely tied in to doctrine, because it can be argued that the value of a human life is nothing when compared to eternal damnation, justifying punishment of those who do not believe. All that messy killing stuff was always fully supported by doctrine, because we Christians clearly knew that we had God on our side, and not on their side. The problem with doctrine has always been, as Irvine Grey inadvertently attested to above, a complete lack of respect or acceptance of the idea that there is value in other cultures and other belief systems. I am still disposed to resist that thought; we must never acquiesce to the thought *and I'm not saying you are exactly* that truth, even The Truth . . . .. to positively invoke the theological nuance, cannot be expressed and articulated universally as well as coherently, even as education and science strives to, or used to. Hear the words of the missionary, "Jesus, begotten, not created, co-equal with God, is the only door; discard any other notion at the altar and submit to His Will, as I define it, I come in peace, please pay no attention to the swordsman slightly behind me and to my left". This does not speak to the Christ within, in my view. Shame on any religious authority who approved. The "good true and beautiful" stand apart from doctrine in my view; I refer you to one William James who argues that spiritual understanding has much more to do with experience than it does with doctrine. And to me, poetic knowledge always transcends any bounded, closed system of doctrine. The Psalms and the Gospels are not doctrine; but rather poetic knowledge, open, limitless and the words close around different ideas, thoughts and feelings at different times. They blend with experience to uplift and educate man on a daily basis. Meanwhile doctrine closes around specific ideas; it's one man's view about a particular issue or question, and may be right or wrong, but more often, unverifiable and often irrelevant. Good thoughts! More than ever Christianity needs to revise and rearticulate it's doctrines or it will take on further irrelevance and shame. Of course, doctrine has "value" in the same way that any idea thoughtfully considered has value. I've read a lot of doctrine; it's just ideas, nothing more, nothing less. Doctrine only has value when you internalize it, and incorporate it into your own knowledge and beliefs. People will say they believe in the Trinity doctrine and yet they don't even "know" it and can't explain it properly. The problem with doctrine today is that it has become a substitute for the ineffable, a diversion from the awe and terror in knowing ourselves and our Maker, and a lulling into complacency. Agreed. You can not create if you are not in touch with the Source of All Things.
|
|