Sola Scriptura

[RubySera_Martin]

but we can say that our understanding is more in line, or less in line, with the ealiest orthodox Christian community or not.

You're just one of thousands of Christian faith communities that claims their own is the closest with earliest orthodox thinking. I don't mean to be difficult but I find it impossible to deny that which stares me in the face. And this argument stares me in the face like few arguments do.

What you describe sounds like strong relativism, an approach that frankly leaves me asea. But perhaps that's just me.

It might well be relativism. I don't know what relativism is. I've heard a lot about it and its evils but I have never read or heard a definition for what it actually is. But what I described is the only thing that makes sense to me. Why would you be at sea with doing your own thinking and discerning your own spiritual condition? My experience has been that the way others describe God and spiritual conditions and how we "should" be simply does not fit me.

So, for me that is foundational because it brings Christ continually into my life, physically and spiritually, but you are right that for some the liturgy and the sacraments are peripheral to their worship and relationship with God. For those folks I look for the other things we have in common, whatever it might be. I figure that at the very least we have the golden rule. So, while sola scriptura does not make sense to me, I do not disregard those who do take this appoach. I just see it differently.

I am one of those people for whom liturgy and sacrament mean absolutely nothing. All these man-made rules and material substances have absolutely NOTHING to do with the spiritual. Why would a God who is so abstract and spiritual that we can't even prove his/her/its existence scientifically--why would such a God care exactly what we eat or wear or how we make the sign of the cross, etc.? If they help focus our spiritual lives, I believe they might have some value. But for me they don't.

I learned to associate certain sounds and smells with holy worship service. But that church has crowded me out of its community and there is no community similar to it that will have me as I am created to be. The churches that will have me are so far from the sounds and smells I used to associate with the sacred that I have to learn all over again. At this point, it's not worth the effort. Esp. with the knowledge that it's all just man-made and meaningless on the spiritual level.

I should probably not even be on the Christian branch of this site but it is my area of interest and study. I don't know why. It just is.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

St Catherine of Siena struck fear into the hearts of popes and set cardinal atremble when she berated them for their sojourn in Avignon. If a woman can upset a man in Medieval Europe, and a powerful man at that, a woman should have nothing to fear in the Church of today.

Catherine of Sienna is one of my heroes. If that lady could tramp all over Europe in the Middle Ages telling popes and other church leaders what to do and still be seen as a child of God, then there is nothing wrong with me as a woman of the 21st century wrangling theology with men of all ranks.

I do trust in Christ's word - I trust in Him, and I see Him reflected more clearly in the Church than in any man - and so I have faith in the church, because I have faith in Him. If I am let down, that is another's fault, not His, and not the Church's.

How do you know Christ exists? Why do you trust something that was written thousands of years ago? What evidence have you that the Christian faith is more than just a batch of things people have done and believed from time immemorial? After all, there is very little in the Bible that is unique. Talk about being lied to, how do you know the RC church is not lying to you right now today?


I realize this is blasphemy and sacrilege but hey! if Christianity can't stand the bare truth then it's not what it's made out to be. If it has no real answers to these questions then it's nothing but a farce. So far, I have found no one of any denomination or level of education--man or woman--who can answer these questions. I am three-quarter-ways through an MA in theology and looking at a Catholic institution for doing the next stage. None of this makes sense but it is the way my life is going. I've learned that if I want peace with myself I will listen to that voice inside of me. So I listen and sometimes I kick and scream. I think I have a right to the best answers Christian thinkers can come up with re those questions. I think I should not be the first person asking these questions. They were the most obvious thing to ask back when as a little child I first heard that Jesus died so we can get to heaven. How can the death of a human body (i.e. Jesus' death on the cross) help spiritual souls get to heaven? The Gnostics at least had an idea that made sense. But they were all killed off by so-called orthodoxy. Thus, it remains for othodox Christianity to answer these questions. And I'm asking.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Ruby,

First let me say that I'm not trying to argumentative here, just talking about things. Pretty much all of the comments I've made are in general, not directed at you or anyone in particular.

You're just one of thousands of Christian faith communities that claims their own is the closest with earliest orthodox thinking. I don't mean to be difficult but I find it impossible to deny that which stares me in the face. And this argument stares me in the face like few arguments do.

I was not claiming that the church I attend 'has it right' or is closet to the earliest Christian practice or whatever--I was making a general statement. One can look at the doctrine of the RCC or the Eastern Orthodox Church and compare how much you agree with or disagree with. That's all. It was not a value judgment.

It might well be relativism. I don't know what relativism is. I've heard a lot about it and its evils but I have never read or heard a definition for what it actually is.

I would define relativism as the belief that any view at all is just as good, just as effective in achieving 'whatever' as another.

But what I described is the only thing that makes sense to me. Why would you be at sea with doing your own thinking and discerning your own spiritual condition? My experience has been that the way others describe God and spiritual conditions and how we "should" be simply does not fit me.

Well, I'm not at sea with doing my own thinking and discerning--who else is going to do that for me? I guess this is related to the question of why bother with religion, why bother being a Christian, or believing in God for that matter? Part of what I expect is that religion will nurture my relationship with God in a way that transforms me from mere existence to something More. To live in the sacred, and be extraordinary. And I certainly do not respond well to anyone telling that 'this is how you should think/feel/believe/act.' But when the offerings of tradition are viewed as a gift, 'take them in remembrance of me,' an invitation, a choice, I think they can take me much further than I could get on my own.

I am one of those people for whom liturgy and sacrament mean absolutely nothing.

You are not alone, and I have no argument at all with you about this. I find them amazing, but they are not the only Way. I believe that the main aspect of the Way is Love.

All these man-made rules and material substances have absolutely NOTHING to do with the spiritual. Why would a God who is so abstract and spiritual that we can't even prove his/her/its existence scientifically--why would such a God care exactly what we eat or wear or how we make the sign of the cross, etc.? If they help focus our spiritual lives, I believe they might have some value. But for me they don't.

That's an interesting perspective, and having come myself from a legalist religion prior to returning to the Episcopal Church I see the liturgy and sacraments as very different from rules. I think of them as gifts, not things I have to do but things I want to do, in fact long to do. God gives us material gifts and sacraments not so that we can please Him, but to satisfy us. This is something I have experienced firsthand when praying with scripture, a longing to eat and drink the Word. I'm not saying you need to experience this--just sharing what I have experienced. And believe me, I am not a 'transcendent' or even highly mystical person. Anyway, so God does not require that we cross ourselves, light candles or genuflect to the cross or whatever. And if they don't mean anything to you I certainly would understand that you wouldn't do them.

I learned to associate certain sounds and smells with holy worship service. But that church has crowded me out of its community and there is no community similar to it that will have me as I am created to be. The churches that will have me are so far from the sounds and smells I used to associate with the sacred that I have to learn all over again. At this point, it's not worth the effort. Esp. with the knowledge that it's all just man-made and meaningless on the spiritual level.

I'm not familiar with the Anabaptists, and I'm not sure what you mean that there is no community that will have you as you are, but I am sorry that this has been your experience. Does not sound like love to me. And, even if you believe all doctrine to be 'man-made' (kind of redundant phrasing IMO), does that mean it can't be meaningful on a spiritual level? I guess I think of it as treading a path gradually worked out by the centuries of Christians before me. But, you can't trust what you can't trust. Hey, I know that from experience as well.

I should probably not even be on the Christian branch of this site but it is my area of interest and study. I don't know why. It just is.

I hope you do stay and continue to post here.

lunamoth

 

[RubySera_Martin]

I don't know what happened but I lost my post when I hit "send." I'll summarize.

I'm not familiar with the Anabaptists, and I'm not sure what you mean that there is no community that will have you as you are, but I am sorry that this has been your experience. Does not sound like love to me.

Anabaptistism comes out of the Reformation. The Lutherans, Calvinsists, Zwinglians, got state protection. That means, people were allowed to practice these beliefs in specific locations. Anabaptists were not granted this right. According to the classical story, in Jan. 1525 three men rebaptized each other. That is commonly considered to be the beginning of Anabaptism. I think it means rebaptizers.

Jesus said his followers should believe and be baptized. The Anabaptists took this very literally and argued that infants can't believe. They paid with their lives and today we have a large, heavy tome containing letters and reports of these martyrs. The short title is "Martyr's Mirror." The Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites are perhaps the main groups of their descendents.

Another classical story has it that William Penn was given the land of Pennsylvania and invited the Mennonites and other religiously persecuted peoples in Europe to settle in the New World. As a consequence, there are huge communities of Amish and Mennonites in Pennsylvania today. We spread throughout the continent and I'm in Ontario.

The Anabaptists differed from the RCC in three main points:

1. Believer's baptism (discussed above)
2. Non-swearing of the oath (Jesus said, "But I say unto you, swear not at all; let your yea be yea and you nay be nay.)
3. Non-resistence; i.e. non-participation in military resistence. (Jesus said it was wrong to kill; war is killing)

In theory, Anabaptist churches of today keep all three of those original points.

 

[lunamoth]

I don't know what happened but I lost my post when I hit "send." I'll summarize.

Oooo, I hate it when that happens. I try to select and copy my posts before I submit them just in case they get lost in cyberspace.

Anabaptistism comes out of the Reformation. The Lutherans, Calvinsists, Zwinglians, got state protection. That means, people were allowed to practice these beliefs in specific locations. Anabaptists were not granted this right. According to the classical story, in Jan. 1525 three men rebaptized each other. That is commonly considered to be the beginning of Anabaptism. I think it means rebaptizers.

Jesus said his followers should believe and be baptized. The Anabaptists took this very literally and argued that infants can't believe. They paid with their lives and today we have a large, heavy tome containing letters and reports of these martyrs. The short title is "Martyr's Mirror." The Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites are perhaps the main groups of their descendents.

Another classical story has it that William Penn was given the land of Pennsylvania and invited the Mennonites and other religiously persecuted peoples in Europe to settle in the New World. As a consequence, there are huge communities of Amish and Mennonites in Pennsylvania today. We spread throughout the continent and I'm in Ontario.

The Anabaptists differed from the RCC in three main points:

1. Believer's baptism (discussed above)
2. Non-swearing of the oath (Jesus said, "But I say unto you, swear not at all; let your yea be yea and you nay be nay.)
3. Non-resistence; i.e. non-participation in military resistence. (Jesus said it was wrong to kill; war is killing)

In theory, Anabaptist churches of today keep all three of those original points.

Thank you for explaining. There are a lot of Mennonites in upstate NY where I grew up. What caused you to leave the Anabaptists, if it's not too personal a question.

luna

 

[RubySera_Martin]

I remember one more part of the lost post. It was a response to:

I hope you do stay and continue to post here.

lunamoth

Thanks. I was afraid the new post (your's) was someone telling me to reign in my passions or leave if I couldn't.

The rest is new:

I described a bit about the Anabaptists and mentioned that the Mennonites are descendents. To explain who I am I'd like to go into a bit more depth. Over the last century and a half there have been major changes in the Mennonite church. Today some Mennonites drive horse and buggies and live without electricity and telephones. Some (by far the largest part) live and dress the same as the rest of North American society, which includes using and owning the latest styles of dress and technology. Between these two ends of the spectrum there are dozens of "degrees" of conservativism and liberalism. This extends to the theological realm as well as the material realm.

I grew up in the most liberal horse and buggy group of this area. There are at least two very conservative car groups in the area. I could have joined one of them. But they don't approve of higher education and I needed higher education. Some people make the change by degrees over a number of years. But I knew that I could not go through this hassle so I just went to the most liberal car group in the area. To my surprise, not even they fully approved of my goal of a full education. A social work degree or teaching certificate or nursing would have been fine with them. But my aspirations of graduate studies???

I'm not the first Mennonite to do so but I was in a rural town and I guess they were out to prove that they were just as good as the more educated city churches. But even a man connected with a Mennonite university discouraged me from so much education. I did not understand since he had a doctorate and he had at one time held the office of president at the local Mennonite college. I've been told since then that Mennonites are doers and just don't believe so much in intellectual pursuits. I guess they just didn't think a horse and buggy country girl should aim so high.

However, after making the sacrifice of breaking with tradition (which includes a very compliated emotional shunning from family and former friends) I was not about to settle for less than my real calling. I say emotional shunning because officially I am not shunned or excommunicated. But they are expert at the unofficial emotional stuff. I knew that would happen. That is why I tried so hard to find a middle way. But since none existed, I decided to take advantage of the situation and do what I was born to do.

Like I explained in another post, the Christology of traditional Christianity does not make sense to me; it does not hang together. Thus, I simply don't feel comfortable in any church that requires and practices belief in Christ's atonement. I used to accept the charge that humans are depraved and sinful, and assumed I'd understand when I got older. But the older I get and the more I learn about human nature, the more I am convinced that there are psychological reasons for the human attrocities that are committed. I believe that humans are good deep down. That upsets the entire heirarchy of churchdom. I've gotten to the point where I will no longer lie about my beliefs re humanity just to be part of a community.

I think there are faith communities that accommodate my beliefs but I'm still looking for the right one. Besides, I feel quite comfortable not going to church. Finding a church is no longer top priority for me.

So there you have a bit about me.

Ruby

 

[RubySera_Martin]

<Oooo, I hate it when that happens. I try to select and copy my posts before I submit them just in case they get lost in cyberspace.>

I think I did that. That's what I mean when I say I don't know what went wrong.

You asked why I left. I think I cover that in Post 26, which I was writing when you posted.

 

[lunamoth]

I think Luther's point was that the people can read the Bible for themselves ... yes but, ... they don't have to depend on the church's interpretation. no, they should depend on his - sola scriptura, faith alone, etc ... all the Reform doctrines are that - doctrines - which the reformed believer is obliged to believe... see, we're back to square one, only now someone else is in charge, and a new set of interpretations.

I see that I've actually had a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. I thought that it meant believing only what is in the Bible and no other 'doctrine,' but from what you say Thomas it appears that sola scriptura is a doctrine itself. I think of 'doctrine' as that part of teaching/interpretation that has been tested by the community and found to reflect the community's best understanding of the Christian experience of God. I would go further and say that I would call 'dogma' those tenet that define the basic Christian foundation, without which one no longer is identified as Christian by others. So, in the context of community/church, one accepts the dogma and at least entertains the doctrine.

This phenomenon of rejecting the old 'authority' but then ending up with a new 'authority' is exactly what I was referring to in saying that sola scriptura does not made sense. There certainly are doctrines that the reform churches and even the modern non-denoms and restorationist churches all say are foundational for being a Christian. The Fundamentals, right? How can we even think or interpret anything without the influence of other people?

I'm tired and I can tell this is kind of rambling, but it really is triggering me from my experience with the Baha'is. Baha'is main strategy in teaching Christians is to tell them to read the Bible 'for themselves, without the influence of man-made doctrine.' And from there they build the case that Christ was not the Incarnation of God, that the Trinity is a false doctrine, baptism and the Eucharist are just symboic and not needed, etc. etc. But, is one then left to understand the Bible on their very own, with no other doctrine? No, of course not. There is the Baha'i doctrine to accept. So first one must use 'independent investigation' to reject all the doctrines of Christianity, and from there one then adopts the new doctrines of the Baha'i Faith, which are not called 'doctrines' but laws since they were given by God directly. No room for interpretation, no more room for independent investigation. And what happens if you apply the same approach to the Baha'i writings, and read them in a sola scriptura approach, and come to a different conclusion than the Baha'i authority? Hmmmm, you will find yourself no longer a Baha'i.

There is not one doctrine in her 2,000 year history that is 'new' or 'different' from that which was taught originally - and I think I am justified in saying the Reformed Churches cannot claim that.

Just wondering how the development of the office of the Pope is viewed--is it considered doctrine? I know I'm handicapped by my lack of knowledge and scholarship here; do you associate doctrine with the catechism, or how is it defined?

lunamoth

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Ruby,

You sound a little like me except I come from an SDA background which kinda has anabaptist roots only it's different. I'm constantly torn between the urge toward utter rejection of Christianity and an absolute fascination with it. In looking for Universal Truth (whatever that is) I kinda stumbled on hermetics, and that's pulled me in two different directions. One way is toward the Catholic mysteries, and the other toward Jewish mysticism. I'm trying to reconcile these two things because I have an unshakable intuition that they are connected and lead to something really profound yet so, so elusive.

I have a hard time with Catholicism because of the way I was brought up in an atmosphere almost entirely bereft of ceremony and that kind of relicary symbolism. And I'm not a Jew, so I don't have the background on that either. I don't feel like I can just embrace either religion through the front door and act it out until it's internalized. That doesn't seem intellectually honest. But I can't let go either, and it's so very frustrating and agonizing, but at the same time ecstatic and tantalizing when I get another little tiny glimpse, another fragment of the puzzle. But there's so much B.S. and so very little good information that it's like hunting a needle in a haystack while blindfolded.

Like Luna, I would be very interested in hearing about your experience if you don't mind.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I see we're all posting at the same time. Hi Luna! (waves)

Chris

 

[taijasi]

Ruby,

Your views on soteriology are shared by many, some at CR (ME!), and quite a few others as I've found in my own spiritual journey.

One need not believe in vicarious atonement in order to be a Christian, although I find that at-one-ment is very much something I desire, and something I consider worthy of my attention. The journey takes a lifetime (and more), I am finding, and it sure isn't easy!

And I'm with you - long ago I found myself wondering how the death of ANYONE could possibly mean LIFE for me ... except that I don't think I ever actually even phrased the question in this way. It would just make no sense to do so, so I never got around to it. After taking a hiatus from my Lutheran upbringing and experimenting with Wicca & stumbling across Aleister Crowley's stuff (yuk!) ... I found my answers in the teachings of Theosophy.

This has lead me full circle, back to Christianity, with an understanding that I could not likely have gained elsewhere, as quickly, as clearly, as satisfactorily, as fully, or as appropriately - for me. And while I have noticed that some folks are hasty to point out - Oh, you're not a "true" Christian, or You're one of those heretical types ... I couldn't care a hill o' beans how others judge me.

The reason I think many are drawn to a discussion of Christ and Christian Teachings - both historical/canonical AND those which the Church, and traditionalists, have chosen to ban, burn, badmouth and exclude - is because there is something of Universal merit and APPLICATION in them ... for my life, for yours, and for those of ANYONE who is willing to take up Christ's yoke and follow. Some will see eye-to-eye on this, yet I feel it is always helpful to be willing to set aside differences and focus on commonalities. I just wish more would be so inclined.

Relativism, in the sense I have seen it discussed most recently & most often at CR, is not something I can agree with. It could result in nothing more than pure fetishism, or the worst of superstitions. But it seems to me that the opposite extreme of a dogmatism and an imprisonment in the traditions of the past ... should equally be eschewed. The Middle Way, in this case, will be that in which the clear Light of Reason can be brought to shine alongside Faith, and complement the latter, even offering insight & illumination. In some cases, this may indeed lead to new understandings of familiar subjects, and such is the nature of progressive Revelation. Either God is a Living, Loving Presence, to be found HERE in the very heart of His Creation, amidst His creatures, and discernable within the varying Scriptures ... or else we must retreat into the notion of the Clockwork God of the Deists.

Not a dead man hanging motionless from a dead tree, some 2100 years ago, but a Living Presence within the Heart(s) of Humanity - THIS is the Christ in which I believe, the God Whom I would worship. And if I fail to discern Him in the Bible, or any other of His Scriptural Revelations to Humanity ... then it's probably time I took my nose out of the books, walked outside, and beheld the Sunshine - for THERE is God, the force of Life Itself.

I don't know, is there room for a Mystic, and the mystical approach in today's Christianity, and on Christian discussion forums? I would hope so.

Namaskar,

taijasi

 

[lunamoth]

I described a bit about the Anabaptists and mentioned that the Mennonites are descendents. To explain who I am I'd like to go into a bit more depth. Over the last century and a half there have been major changes in the Mennonite church. Today some Mennonites drive horse and buggies and live without electricity and telephones. Some (by far the largest part) live and dress the same as the rest of North American society, which includes using and owning the latest styles of dress and technology. Between these two ends of the spectrum there are dozens of "degrees" of conservativism and liberalism. This extends to the theological realm as well as the material realm.

I grew up in the most liberal horse and buggy group of this area. There are at least two very conservative car groups in the area. I could have joined one of them. But they don't approve of higher education and I needed higher education. Some people make the change by degrees over a number of years. But I knew that I could not go through this hassle so I just went to the most liberal car group in the area. To my surprise, not even they fully approved of my goal of a full education. A social work degree or teaching certificate or nursing would have been fine with them. But my aspirations of graduate studies???

I'm not the first Mennonite to do so but I was in a rural town and I guess they were out to prove that they were just as good as the more educated city churches. But even a man connected with a Mennonite university discouraged me from so much education. I did not understand since he had a doctorate and he had at one time held the office of president at the local Mennonite college. I've been told since then that Mennonites are doers and just don't believe so much in intellectual pursuits. I guess they just didn't think a horse and buggy country girl should aim so high.

However, after making the sacrifice of breaking with tradition (which includes a very compliated emotional shunning from family and former friends) I was not about to settle for less than my real calling. I say emotional shunning because officially I am not shunned or excommunicated. But they are expert at the unofficial emotional stuff. I knew that would happen. That is why I tried so hard to find a middle way. But since none existed, I decided to take advantage of the situation and do what I was born to do.

Like I explained in another post, the Christology of traditional Christianity does not make sense to me; it does not hang together. Thus, I simply don't feel comfortable in any church that requires and practices belief in Christ's atonement. I used to accept the charge that humans are depraved and sinful, and assumed I'd understand when I got older. But the older I get and the more I learn about human nature, the more I am convinced that there are psychological reasons for the human attrocities that are committed. I believe that humans are good deep down. That upsets the entire heirarchy of churchdom. I've gotten to the point where I will no longer lie about my beliefs re humanity just to be part of a community.

I think there are faith communities that accommodate my beliefs but I'm still looking for the right one. Besides, I feel quite comfortable not going to church. Finding a church is no longer top priority for me.

So there you have a bit about me.

Ruby

Thank you Ruby. I find this insight into the Mennonite community fascinating. I think it's amazing the fortitude you've shown in your qwest to find your own answers. It's hard for me to imagine growing up in a culture that does not encourage education as that is the exact opposite of my experience--an education is considered the most prized thing we can have in my family. But my parents are also flexible in that they were fully supportive of my little sister who decided that college was not for her. Anyhoo...

From what you said I did not detect that you were discouraged from an education because you are a woman, but just because an education is viewed with some suspiscion. Is that correct? As for the hard-working part, from what I've seen of the Mennonites in NY that is very obvious. My father, an atheist, has so much respect for the Mennonites because they work hard and with good craftsmanship and discipline. I have to say I really respect that trait too.

The part about the shunning I find very sad. I hope this gets easier for you with time, as everyone gets used to the idea of the path you've chosen.

As for the Christology, I have to say that the emphasis on the atonement is not large in the church I grew up in. Certainly it is part of the doctrine, but I have been very fortunate, I think, to have been raised in a pretty liberal church where the emphasis is on God's love for us, rather than judgement. And as for humans being depraved and sinful, that also is just not part of what I hear in church. The falleness of our state does not mean that we are 'bad,' in fact I think Catholic doctrine teaches the goodness of creation, including and especially humans, but we are in more like a state of separation, or being less than we were created for. What you describe sounds a lot more like what I associate with fundamentalism. Anyway, I agree with you that many, if not all of the atrocities committed by humans have more to do with our psychology than with 'sin.' But, then I ponder why there is mental instability and other physiological illnesses in a world created good...

I admire your integrity and intellectual honesty regarding your beliefs, and I see that China Cat is posting at the same time so I will add that I admire his as well.

luna

 

[lunamoth]

I see we're all posting at the same time. Hi Luna! (waves)

Chris

Hi Chris! I am having trouble getting booted off all the time too when I write longer posts. This has been a new thing for the past oh I don't know six months (yes, I have been around here for a long time). Anyway, good to 'see' you!

luna

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Andrew,

And I'm with you - long ago I found myself wondering how the death of ANYONE could possibly mean LIFE for me ... except that I don't think I ever actually even phrased the question in this way. It would just make no sense to do so, so I never got around to it.

It is our own death that brings true life. We die to our self and live and Christ. This does not mean we throw off all individuality.

Relativism, in the sense I have seen it discussed most recently & most often at CR, is not something I can agree with. It could result in nothing more than pure fetishism, or the worst of superstitions. But it seems to me that the opposite extreme of a dogmatism and an imprisonment in the traditions of the past ... should equally be eschewed. The Middle Way, in this case, will be that in which the clear Light of Reason can be brought to shine alongside Faith, and complement the latter, even offering insight & illumination.

Are you sure you're not an Episcopalian?

I don't know, is there room for a Mystic, and the mystical approach in today's Christianity, and on Christian discussion forums? I would hope so.

I certainly think so, not that I consider myself a mystic.

luna

 

[Dondi]

Ruby,

I understand your concern about tradition. Even Jesus warned against the traditions of man overruling the commandments of God:

"Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." - Matthew 15:1-9


Here the 1st century Jewish religious leaders, the Pharisees, misused tradition to water down the commandment of God to honor one's father and mother. Jesus constantly berated the Jewish leaders as hyprocrites and legalists. They took away from the true worship of God by putting chains of the law on the people. But the commandments of God are summed up in loving God and loving others and if this isn't the goal of one's tradition, then that tradition is in vain.

Even Paul encountered churches that were following the precepts of certain apostles rather than of Christ:

"For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" - I Corinthians 1:11-13

Having said this, however, I believe that being in a Body of Believers who adhere to the same precepts actually strengthens more than divides. When we come together as a church with a mission in mind, a vision of what God wants us to see as a church, then we are unified to a common goal. I admit that I don't agree with some doctrines in the Baptist church I attend, but I do see the love of God being displayed among the members of the congregation and in the outreach to save unbelievers. I've learned not to quibble over doctrine, unless it is overtly dangerous, but rather accept that I disagree and concentrate on more weightier issues of the tasks at hand. We are at least unified in the essentials. Bringing people to Christ is our main focus in our church, so regardless of the differences I might have in their fundamentalist doctrines, I am at least in agreement with their desire to bring souls to God.

I don't know what you are looking for, Ruby. I suppose you can start your own denomination, say, the Church of RubySera_Martin, so that you can be satisfied with all the doctrines of that church. But I suppose that is why we have so many denominations because we are so diverse as individuals. But how many people will attend the Church of RubySera_Martin? Probably those who think a lot like you. But I guarantee that they won't agree with everything you proclaim.

I would suggest you examine you beliefs and find out what is most important to you and then seek a church that has the same goals. Even if that church doesn't line up perfectly, at least you can serve with other believers in a common goal that you both agree on. you will develop relationships with like-minded worshippers and find strength from each other.

"And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." - Hebrews 10:24-25

 

[Dondi]

BTW, I just read an article in The Washington Post about the growing trend in home churches that don't adhere to strict traditions. Perhaps this is what you are looking for. They feature one such church from my hometown of Rockville, MD, incidently, which includes members from Evangelical, Episcopalian, and Catholic backgrounds.

Article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03/AR2006060300225.html

 

[RubySera_Martin]

A quick word about relativism, then I have to focus on other things. A friend sent me an article defining moral relativism. It argues that relativism says there is no absolute truth so everyone can make their own standards of right and wrong, including criminal behaviour such as murder and pedophilia.

I know absolutely no one who believes murder and pedophilia are okay, though I can see that the critics of relativism want to point out this logical conclusion. I think what governs relativism so as not to reach such absurd degrees of criminal behaviour is the secular value of: You can do whatever you like so long as you don't hurt someone. When that is applied to religion, it obligates parents and churches not to force young people to go to church and become full members against their will and convictions. I think we need something between absolute authority and absolute relativism. And I think the idea about doing whatever one likes so long as it doesn't hurt self or others does a very good job of being a middle road.

 

[wil]

I failed to mention--I think Luther's point was that the people can read the Bible for themselves; they don't have to depend on the church's interpretation. I sort of think, and I also came across this idea in the literature, that he did not think this one through to its logical conclusion; the Bible can be taken in countless ways, and countless churches have come into existence because people read the Bible for themselves. Should we go back to not reading the Bible? I hope not!

You know I always thought that was Jesus's point as well. That one didn't have to go to temple to learn, that one should read the Torah themselves... of course that was long before Gutenberg made it feasible.

 

[wil]

I know absolutely no one who believes murder and pedophilia are okay,

Our prisons and graves are full of people that believe just that.... There are whole countries where what we call pedophiles they call normal... Everyone may justify it, not call it murder...but all through the ages on until today, murder, mass murder and genocide even, have been mainstays of humans it appears...

 

[Quahom1]

A quick word about relativism, then I have to focus on other things. A friend sent me an article defining moral relativism. It argues that relativism says there is no absolute truth so everyone can make their own standards of right and wrong, including criminal behaviour such as murder and pedophilia.

I know absolutely no one who believes murder and pedophilia are okay, though I can see that the critics of relativism want to point out this logical conclusion. I think what governs relativism so as not to reach such absurd degrees of criminal behaviour is the secular value of: You can do whatever you like so long as you don't hurt someone. When that is applied to religion, it obligates parents and churches not to force young people to go to church and become full members against their will and convictions. I think we need something between absolute authority and absolute relativism. And I think the idea about doing whatever one likes so long as it doesn't hurt self or others does a very good job of being a middle road.

I believe that is what you would call "balance". Though I for one do believe there are areas in life that relativism has no place...in short there is absolute right and absolute wrong. How we deal with them, that is a different matter all together. And I think that is called "grace" and forgiveness.

my thoughts

v/r

Q