lunamoth
Episcopalian
If all that we have is from God, if we live completely in/by God's Providence, then faith like everything else is from God.
BK Religions
- Thread starter Dor
- Start date
If all that we have is from God, if we live completely in/by God's Providence, then faith like everything else is from God.
Theresa died a couple of years ago...and for 80 years she was as close to a perfect example of Jesus' definitions as one can get...
I don't think many of us have ever come nearly as close to that which we all seek.
C
cyberpi
Guest
I was referring to:
Matthew 7:11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
1. You have absolutely no idea what I might believe.
2.What do you think this whole discussion has been about?You have been trying to convince me of your idea that God promised us, and we trully have, free will.
Go back and check out posts 51, and 52 if you're not sure.
The only problem is that every argument you have given to convince me of this notion has required that I first accept it as being true.
Yep. That is what God tells us. Believe it or not. I personally don't care whether one accepts God's promises. I just tell it like it is. You can call "Bull" anytime you wish. I won't say you are right or wrong, just that we do not agree Cav.
v/r
Joshua
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Thomas said:
Let's look at it this way. Let's suppose we have a common destination, but we were all in different places when we were called to gather at that destination. We would have to move in different directions in order to reach the same destination. The term "Christian" would depend on where, when, why and how we were called. Where do you come from? What is your background? The meaning of "Christian" is stamped into that context. The term "Christian" distinguishes you from everyone else in that context, culture, society, etc. We're all moving in different directions even though we have the same target. We're not all moving north because we're not all south of our destination. Some of us come from the the west, east and the south.
Thomas said:
The way I see it is . . . Jesus explained but didn't define. An explanation and a definition aren't the same thing. Different people have a different relationship with God. That, I reckon, is all I can say about it. The explanation Jesus gave leads us to God. Jesus didn't define anything. He just explained. It's like giving the same instructions to different people in different places on how to reach the same destination. You can't define the route because everyone takes a different route. You can only explain how to get to the destination. What landmarks will you meet? What enemies and predators will you encounter? Who do you ask for information?
My impression from reading the Bible is that its purpose is not to give Christianity structure, but to explain it. Defining is like giving map directions. But, if we are all in different places, giving map directions won't necessarily help us get there. Giving Christianity structure is like providing map directions. Most of the division in Christianity are about map directions. I think the idea should be to explain the journey, not the exact route for getting there.
Thomas said:
But . . . then again, when we were called, we weren't found in the same locality. We are in different places. Getting everyone to conform is like using the same map directions. Ultimately, far less of us reach the destination because we didn't know how to get there in the first place . . . That's because the map directions didn't help us understand the journey. Map directions don't say much about the enemies we will meet, or where to get information from, and what advice to avoid. There instructions would be unnecessary if map directions were sufficient.
Despite the sheer number of divisions and factions in Christianity, we might be overlooking how much we really have in common. Yet, we can't help arguing over map directions even though we come from different places and the same map directions won't help us all get there. Our error is to treat Christianity as something systematic and technical rather than intuitive.
Thomas said:
Sometimes sentences can be ambiguous. So how do we know the "true meaning?" I think there are times when there is no such thing as "the true meaning." It depends on the intention of the speaker. What did he mean? The same sentence can mean two different things in two different contexts.
That's why we need a conversation. For clarity. You provide extra information. That's why we write whole books on involved topics/subjects. If one sentence is not enough, provide a second one, a third one, and so on. I have never heard of a religion that was quantified in exactly one statement, like a logical, mathematical equation. Imagine if that was possible -- that a religion could be summed up in one single equation.
I don't think it's an accident that people have different interpretations of the Bible. I don't see that as wrong. We filter out different aspects of a written piece as more important than others. If one verse doesn't give you the information that you need, find another that will -- that one verse is only one part of the story. The information you need and I need may not be the same thing. I may notice something you do not even though we're reading the same verse, and vice versa. But even then we can both be led to the same Christ -- it's just that I needed a different verse to you. The same verses don't serve the same purpose for everyone. We are similar but our minds function differently.
Thomas said:
Concrete vs. abstract . . . I'm thinking agreement doesn't necessarily mean a concept is "concrete," it's just that it has a similar meaning to a lot of people.
What I am talking about here is a separation between logic and sentiment. Logic has a fixed structure. Sentiment is about what we feel. Reasoning can be either logical or sentimental. Not all "correct" reasoning is logical. Some of it is sentimental. There is a difference between a romantic relationship between a man and woman (a marriage -- driven by emotions) and a customer's professional relationship with a bank (the bank account - driven by numbers, rules and laws). With Christianity it's a similar thing. Do you treat God like a bank or more like someone you love?
There is room for being "wrong" as well as being "right" with sentiment. The question is not whether our "logic" is right, but whether our "sentiment" is right. There are things that are "wrong" in a relationship that involves love and one that involves numbers, logic, calculations, calculus and money. I think it's more of a personal understanding of ourselves rather than following a set of rules.
Let me honestly say, I can't find much in the Bible to suggest the idea that "Truth" in Christianity is something driven by logic over the idea of sentiment. If so, then I find that the sentiment for Christianity to be driven by logic is very weak, hard to discern and identify.
Thomas said:
Same here. Don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. Just saying. Should we follow formulas or trust our feelings? I just think that what we believe about Christianity should be compatible with who we are as human beings.
Thomas said:
I'd be interested to know what category you think my thinking belongs to . . . as I have no idea. I did not get this kind of thinking from reading books about Christianity or any religion. It's just my personal view, one that's evolved over time from reading about different views and approaches to Christianity. You could say it's my response to how Christianity has been approached. Seeing the different ways of thinking has been interesting.
I don't use the common labels "liberal", "traditional" or "conservative" as that suggests that Christianity has structure. Liberals are "casual" towards structure, "conservatives" cling to it. I am neither for or against structure in Christianity, but I prefer it not to be used as a yardstick for measuring people.
Just show me where I can find this promise, please.
God promised man, He would not interfere with man's free will. He said nothing about influencing man's heart however...
But there is also the notice that God said, pertaining to the heart of man. Some will harden their hearts, to the point of stone. That implies free will (a decision), to ignore or reject what is offered.
v/r
Joshua
I just wanted to add something to what Joshua said.. God is sovereign that means He can do whatever He wants to. He has graciously provided a Lamb just like Abraham said in Gen 22:8 God will provide for Himself a Lamb... whether one uses that free will He gave us to chose that lamb or not.. thats up to them.. but God knows those that will choose Him because He knows ALL things.
How do we know God freed our will?? I saw someone was asking for a specific scripture well here are biblical answers to all these questions... rather than cut and paste Im posting a link for you to read.
What does the Bible say about God's sovereignty, election, predestination, and man's free will? - ChristianAnswers.Net
It was me who was asking.
Thanks for the link, it's a bit late tonight, but I will look at them.
Hi Saltmeister -
Let's suppose we have a common destination, but we were all in different places when we were called to gather at that destination. We would have to move in different directions in order to reach the same destination. The term "Christian" would depend on where, when, why and how we were called. Where do you come from? What is your background? The meaning of "Christian" is stamped into that context. The term "Christian" distinguishes you from everyone else in that context, culture, society, etc. We're all moving in different directions even though we have the same target. We're not all moving north because we're not all south of our destination. Some of us come from the the west, east and the south.
I would agree that the meaning of 'Christian' - and the Scriptural understanding of that term, is that whilst we do have a given 'context' of who we are, which is necessarily framed in those terms - social, cultural, geopolitical, etc., there are certain transcendant truths or Principles of Christian Doctrine which are transmitted faithfully within that given context (such as the Bible in Latin or French or English does not render it inopperative because it's not in the Aramaic or the Greek).
That there are certain things which can be said and known about the destination itself which are common to all, from whatever angle they approach it. A Christian of the early first millenium should be able to 'recognise' a Christian of the early third by those things they hold in common - which one might call the truths of Revelation, contained in Scripture and Tradition - even if the external embodiment is significantly alien.
But I do accept it might take a saint to see through that particular 'glass'.
The way I see it is . . . Jesus explained but didn't define. An explanation and a definition aren't the same thing. Different people have a different relationship with God. That, I reckon, is all I can say about it.
This is interesting soil. What if I say Jesus did define, quite specifically? I am thinking of today's readings from the Liturgy, aposite in this regard:
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
Mark 12:30-31
However, Christianity is not so much about objectivity but their relationships, I would say Christ defines (in His words, in His deeds, and in Himself) that relationship with God in absolute and transcendant terms, not in the objective sense of who man and who God is, but in the subjective sense of how we should respond to God. Hence the call to love God, not to know or understand, as a first principle.
In that context you are absolutely right, Jesus does not define our relationship for us, He defines the relationship (what it is and what it is not; what it can be and what it cannot be), and calls upon us to find that within our hearts ... where, if I was to push the point, I believe we might differ, is I believe it is not for us to define the terms of the relationship - we are obliged to conform ourselves to the will of God, not God alter his nature according to us - because when we do defines according to ourselves, we inescapably do so according to our weakness.
The explanation Jesus gave leads us to God. Jesus didn't define anything. He just explained. It's like giving the same instructions to different people in different places on how to reach the same destination. You can't define the route because everyone takes a different route. You can only explain how to get to the destination. What landmarks will you meet? What enemies and predators will you encounter? Who do you ask for information?
But the exhortation to love God and one's neighbour, the two commandments that will 'bring you close to heaven' is universal in that regard.
Our error is to treat Christianity as something systematic and technical rather than intuitive.
That is a massive 'problem'(?) ... or is it perhaps something in the nature of man himself?
I wonder because we intuit from the data we receive, via the senses and the intellect, and we systematise accordingly and necessarily. Man's life should be intuitive and reactive, but it cannot be chaotic and anarchic ... if it were there's no guarantee we'd even be able to get out of bed in the morning...
Our intuition has to operate within a given framework, not only of what we know, but what we think about what we know, which in the end leads us to make judgements and draw intuitions about our ability to know at all.
It is here that a fundamental difference with the Enlightenment arises. Post-Enlightenment philosophy insists that the human capacity to know is entirely subjective and therefore fallible and contingent. Man cannot know absolutes, he can have no certainties - he can experience the Kantian phenomena (apperance or substance) of the world, but he cannot know the Kantian 'noumena' (thing-in-itself or essence). Therefore all his knowing is subjective, limted by those very conditions you described at the start, (geopolitical, et al) and in increasingly individualist until he is left to just himself. Christian Doctrine holds all the above to be truth, but that God can communicate the Absolute Truth of Himself and his Will through the media of Revelation.
Sometimes sentences can be ambiguous. So how do we know the "true meaning?" I think there are times when there is no such thing as "the true meaning." It depends on the intention of the speaker. What did he mean? The same sentence can mean two different things in two different contexts.
Nail on the head. Doctrine holds that the 'true meaning' is contained in Scripture - even though the material fact might not be true. Were there five thousand fed, or more, or less? It really doesn't matter - what matters is that a miracle was performed, and what that miracle signifies.
Enlightenment thinking states (or one strand, that was argued to me) that 5,000 people would not go out for the day without taking adequate provisions - that the miracle was in fact not a miracle, because there would have been more food than five loaves and two fishes - so the miracle never took place ... so the meaning, point or purpose of the miracle is lost, as one might say, on a technicality.
Imagine if that was possible -- that a religion could be summed up in one single equation.
Love? Om? ... but I take your point. It can be, it's just that we're thick-headed. Or hard-hearted ...
'A picture says a thousand words' they say - I think we can intuit quite accurately in our heart precisely what Christianity is, but we recoil from what it will demand of us - and I would say from the evidence of the world that some pour out books to 'talk ouselves into' what we know to be the case, and some do likewise to 'talk ourselves out of'.
I don't think it's an accident that people have different interpretations of the Bible. I don't see that as wrong. We filter out different aspects of a written piece as more important than others. If one verse doesn't give you the information that you need, find another that will -- that one verse is only one part of the story. The information you need and I need may not be the same thing. I may notice something you do not even though we're reading the same verse, and vice versa. But even then we can both be led to the same Christ -- it's just that I needed a different verse to you. The same verses don't serve the same purpose for everyone. We are similar but our minds function differently.
Agreed. But I think there is an argument re how we perceive the Bible itself, that's where I'm coming from.
There was an argument that different times and cultures respond to the bible differently, and that some elements were specific to them, or their situation, and some elements were not - in effect that parts of the canon could be discarded as unsuitable, inadmissable, or not applicable ... then the Bible ceases to be transcendant truth cloaked in humans words and the record of Salvation History - it becomes a philosophy that can be dipped in and out of. Suddenly man is determining whichs words of God he need listen to, and which he can ignore...
What I am talking about here is a separation between logic and sentiment. Logic has a fixed structure. Sentiment is about what we feel. Reasoning can be either logical or sentimental. Not all "correct" reasoning is logical. Some of it is sentimental. There is a difference between a romantic relationship between a man and woman (a marriage -- driven by emotions) and a customer's professional relationship with a bank (the bank account - driven by numbers, rules and laws). With Christianity it's a similar thing. Do you treat God like a bank or more like someone you love?
Agreed in all - I would go further to say that Christianity demands not simply a logical adherence (Law), but a sentimental one (Love) - we are not pure logic nor pure sentiment - with the proviso that what we feel, what we believe, that faith, is not contrary to reason.
Again we have to step back here - 'modernity' (if I might use that phrase loosely) treats religion as sentimental, if not superstition. If its superstition, it should be done away with. If it's sentimental it is permissable as long as it doesn't interfere with the fabric of society and its relationships. It does not treat religion as 'true' in the sense of scientific truth (ie demonstrable in lab conditions), but equally it regards religion as 'false' because of certain a priori philosophical assumptions, which for the most part pass without question - they are the sociopolitical framework or context upon which modern man treats religion as of not principle and primary importance - and it is those assumptions (for they are not proven) that Doctrine rejects as not absolute.
Should we follow formulas or trust our feelings? I just think that what we believe about Christianity should be compatible with who we are as human beings.
Indeed - but I don't see it otherwise? As a species we are in a certain sense formulaic in our responses, be it self-interest or philanthropic - but an act can be one or the other, and that determines it's true worth.
I'd be interested to know what category you think my thinking belongs to . . . as I have no idea. I did not get this kind of thinking from reading books about Christianity or any religion. It's just my personal view, one that's evolved over time from reading about different views and approaches to Christianity. You could say it's my response to how Christianity has been approached. Seeing the different ways of thinking has been interesting.
I'm not sure I could 'define' how you think - rather I was picking up on certain 'trends' I read, that's all.
I don't use the common labels "liberal", "traditional" or "conservative" as that suggests that Christianity has structure. Liberals are "casual" towards structure, "conservatives" cling to it. I am neither for or against structure in Christianity, but I prefer it not to be used as a yardstick for measuring people.
A Greek philosopher referred to the 'Apeiron' (the boundless) from which Arche (Principle) emerged. The Greek Fathers talk of the Father 'Arche Anarchos' (Principle without Principle) and of the Son as 'Arche' - Principle or Logos.
Jesus Christ as Logos speaks to me absolutely in the sense of 'structure' - relationship is a structure.
If I were to be crass I might suggest that traditionalist seek a 'closed relationship' that defines the relationship of the two absolutely, the liberal seeks an 'open relationship' in which each is free to thinks and do as he/she likes ...
... I think the paradigm is a 'close' relationship that is 'open'?
Thomas
Let's suppose we have a common destination, but we were all in different places when we were called to gather at that destination. We would have to move in different directions in order to reach the same destination. The term "Christian" would depend on where, when, why and how we were called. Where do you come from? What is your background? The meaning of "Christian" is stamped into that context. The term "Christian" distinguishes you from everyone else in that context, culture, society, etc. We're all moving in different directions even though we have the same target. We're not all moving north because we're not all south of our destination. Some of us come from the the west, east and the south.
I would agree that the meaning of 'Christian' - and the Scriptural understanding of that term, is that whilst we do have a given 'context' of who we are, which is necessarily framed in those terms - social, cultural, geopolitical, etc., there are certain transcendant truths or Principles of Christian Doctrine which are transmitted faithfully within that given context (such as the Bible in Latin or French or English does not render it inopperative because it's not in the Aramaic or the Greek).
That there are certain things which can be said and known about the destination itself which are common to all, from whatever angle they approach it. A Christian of the early first millenium should be able to 'recognise' a Christian of the early third by those things they hold in common - which one might call the truths of Revelation, contained in Scripture and Tradition - even if the external embodiment is significantly alien.
But I do accept it might take a saint to see through that particular 'glass'.
The way I see it is . . . Jesus explained but didn't define. An explanation and a definition aren't the same thing. Different people have a different relationship with God. That, I reckon, is all I can say about it.
This is interesting soil. What if I say Jesus did define, quite specifically? I am thinking of today's readings from the Liturgy, aposite in this regard:
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
Mark 12:30-31
However, Christianity is not so much about objectivity but their relationships, I would say Christ defines (in His words, in His deeds, and in Himself) that relationship with God in absolute and transcendant terms, not in the objective sense of who man and who God is, but in the subjective sense of how we should respond to God. Hence the call to love God, not to know or understand, as a first principle.
In that context you are absolutely right, Jesus does not define our relationship for us, He defines the relationship (what it is and what it is not; what it can be and what it cannot be), and calls upon us to find that within our hearts ... where, if I was to push the point, I believe we might differ, is I believe it is not for us to define the terms of the relationship - we are obliged to conform ourselves to the will of God, not God alter his nature according to us - because when we do defines according to ourselves, we inescapably do so according to our weakness.
The explanation Jesus gave leads us to God. Jesus didn't define anything. He just explained. It's like giving the same instructions to different people in different places on how to reach the same destination. You can't define the route because everyone takes a different route. You can only explain how to get to the destination. What landmarks will you meet? What enemies and predators will you encounter? Who do you ask for information?
But the exhortation to love God and one's neighbour, the two commandments that will 'bring you close to heaven' is universal in that regard.
Our error is to treat Christianity as something systematic and technical rather than intuitive.
That is a massive 'problem'(?) ... or is it perhaps something in the nature of man himself?
I wonder because we intuit from the data we receive, via the senses and the intellect, and we systematise accordingly and necessarily. Man's life should be intuitive and reactive, but it cannot be chaotic and anarchic ... if it were there's no guarantee we'd even be able to get out of bed in the morning...
Our intuition has to operate within a given framework, not only of what we know, but what we think about what we know, which in the end leads us to make judgements and draw intuitions about our ability to know at all.
It is here that a fundamental difference with the Enlightenment arises. Post-Enlightenment philosophy insists that the human capacity to know is entirely subjective and therefore fallible and contingent. Man cannot know absolutes, he can have no certainties - he can experience the Kantian phenomena (apperance or substance) of the world, but he cannot know the Kantian 'noumena' (thing-in-itself or essence). Therefore all his knowing is subjective, limted by those very conditions you described at the start, (geopolitical, et al) and in increasingly individualist until he is left to just himself. Christian Doctrine holds all the above to be truth, but that God can communicate the Absolute Truth of Himself and his Will through the media of Revelation.
Sometimes sentences can be ambiguous. So how do we know the "true meaning?" I think there are times when there is no such thing as "the true meaning." It depends on the intention of the speaker. What did he mean? The same sentence can mean two different things in two different contexts.
Nail on the head. Doctrine holds that the 'true meaning' is contained in Scripture - even though the material fact might not be true. Were there five thousand fed, or more, or less? It really doesn't matter - what matters is that a miracle was performed, and what that miracle signifies.
Enlightenment thinking states (or one strand, that was argued to me) that 5,000 people would not go out for the day without taking adequate provisions - that the miracle was in fact not a miracle, because there would have been more food than five loaves and two fishes - so the miracle never took place ... so the meaning, point or purpose of the miracle is lost, as one might say, on a technicality.
Imagine if that was possible -- that a religion could be summed up in one single equation.
Love? Om? ... but I take your point. It can be, it's just that we're thick-headed. Or hard-hearted ...
'A picture says a thousand words' they say - I think we can intuit quite accurately in our heart precisely what Christianity is, but we recoil from what it will demand of us - and I would say from the evidence of the world that some pour out books to 'talk ouselves into' what we know to be the case, and some do likewise to 'talk ourselves out of'.
I don't think it's an accident that people have different interpretations of the Bible. I don't see that as wrong. We filter out different aspects of a written piece as more important than others. If one verse doesn't give you the information that you need, find another that will -- that one verse is only one part of the story. The information you need and I need may not be the same thing. I may notice something you do not even though we're reading the same verse, and vice versa. But even then we can both be led to the same Christ -- it's just that I needed a different verse to you. The same verses don't serve the same purpose for everyone. We are similar but our minds function differently.
Agreed. But I think there is an argument re how we perceive the Bible itself, that's where I'm coming from.
There was an argument that different times and cultures respond to the bible differently, and that some elements were specific to them, or their situation, and some elements were not - in effect that parts of the canon could be discarded as unsuitable, inadmissable, or not applicable ... then the Bible ceases to be transcendant truth cloaked in humans words and the record of Salvation History - it becomes a philosophy that can be dipped in and out of. Suddenly man is determining whichs words of God he need listen to, and which he can ignore...
What I am talking about here is a separation between logic and sentiment. Logic has a fixed structure. Sentiment is about what we feel. Reasoning can be either logical or sentimental. Not all "correct" reasoning is logical. Some of it is sentimental. There is a difference between a romantic relationship between a man and woman (a marriage -- driven by emotions) and a customer's professional relationship with a bank (the bank account - driven by numbers, rules and laws). With Christianity it's a similar thing. Do you treat God like a bank or more like someone you love?
Agreed in all - I would go further to say that Christianity demands not simply a logical adherence (Law), but a sentimental one (Love) - we are not pure logic nor pure sentiment - with the proviso that what we feel, what we believe, that faith, is not contrary to reason.
Again we have to step back here - 'modernity' (if I might use that phrase loosely) treats religion as sentimental, if not superstition. If its superstition, it should be done away with. If it's sentimental it is permissable as long as it doesn't interfere with the fabric of society and its relationships. It does not treat religion as 'true' in the sense of scientific truth (ie demonstrable in lab conditions), but equally it regards religion as 'false' because of certain a priori philosophical assumptions, which for the most part pass without question - they are the sociopolitical framework or context upon which modern man treats religion as of not principle and primary importance - and it is those assumptions (for they are not proven) that Doctrine rejects as not absolute.
Should we follow formulas or trust our feelings? I just think that what we believe about Christianity should be compatible with who we are as human beings.
Indeed - but I don't see it otherwise? As a species we are in a certain sense formulaic in our responses, be it self-interest or philanthropic - but an act can be one or the other, and that determines it's true worth.
I'd be interested to know what category you think my thinking belongs to . . . as I have no idea. I did not get this kind of thinking from reading books about Christianity or any religion. It's just my personal view, one that's evolved over time from reading about different views and approaches to Christianity. You could say it's my response to how Christianity has been approached. Seeing the different ways of thinking has been interesting.
I'm not sure I could 'define' how you think - rather I was picking up on certain 'trends' I read, that's all.
I don't use the common labels "liberal", "traditional" or "conservative" as that suggests that Christianity has structure. Liberals are "casual" towards structure, "conservatives" cling to it. I am neither for or against structure in Christianity, but I prefer it not to be used as a yardstick for measuring people.
A Greek philosopher referred to the 'Apeiron' (the boundless) from which Arche (Principle) emerged. The Greek Fathers talk of the Father 'Arche Anarchos' (Principle without Principle) and of the Son as 'Arche' - Principle or Logos.
Jesus Christ as Logos speaks to me absolutely in the sense of 'structure' - relationship is a structure.
If I were to be crass I might suggest that traditionalist seek a 'closed relationship' that defines the relationship of the two absolutely, the liberal seeks an 'open relationship' in which each is free to thinks and do as he/she likes ...
... I think the paradigm is a 'close' relationship that is 'open'?
Thomas
I'm not exactly convinced by this, but then, was I ever going to be? What's that Simon and Garfunkel lyric? "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
By the same token though, a lot of what's written on this link seems to be someone believing something and then finding verses to support his case.
Thanks though Faithful, I appreciate you taking the time to find this link.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Thomas said:
I guess, though, none of us really knows the "precise concept" that needs to be preserved and passed on from believer to believer, exactly. The "absolute concepts" are like needles in a haystack. What we see are concepts (peripheral concepts) that have something to do with the core absolute, but we're groping around in the mist and fog and all we can see are the peripheral concepts that lead to the core absolutes.
Ok, let's say I know Christ is important. I know the concept of God is important, but what about the details? I may argue about the concept of Trinity, the Story of Sin, or something else, but it all means nothing unless I come to an appreciation about the true purpose of Christianity, which goes beyond the technical details.
Some could argue that the Trinity concept is false. Others could say that while God isn't really three, the Trinity is still a valid concept, one that describes an experience of God in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- that it is an acceptable but not illegal concept. It could be used by some Christians to explain their experience of God, without which they wouldn't be able to explain it. Still others may say He is, indeed three, just not the way we would think.
Strangely enough, Paul, Peter, James and John never talk about protecting or preserving a Trinity concept in their warnings against false teachings. John, for example, talks about preserving the concept of the Son.
The real issue is speculation. We're all speculating here. Nobody can prove where the boundaries lay. We are speculating about the semantics of the language and use of words in the Bible. There is obviously an agenda, an intention in what was written, but the early Christians are long dead and they are no longer here to answer our questions.
One could almost say that Christianity is a "dead religion" because the early Christians are dead and can't tell us what to believe. Except for one thing -- and it's to do with what Jesus said in John 14:17 -- that "you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." Christ is alive, and he's around to tell us.
In that sense, the words of the Bible preserve the words of the early Christian leaders, but not the meaning of Christianity. The true meaning of Christianity perhaps comes only from Christ -- which requires a real, spiritual encounter. The words do carry meaning, but because we have different interpretations, we might not be in touch with their true intended meaning. But as I said before, the words are there to provoke. I believe that if we allow ourselves to be correctly provoked, we will, indeed, discover the true (indended) meaning of those words.
I guess nobody can really define their true meaning to us. We have to discover it for ourselves -- that is to discover Christ, someone who can get close and personal.
Thomas said:
I usually speak of "structure" as something static and unchanging. That is what I meant by "structure." I agree that a relationship is a "structure," but something dynamic and changes as time goes by.
What I get from the Bible is not something fixed and static, but something dynamic. As life experiences accumulate, our thinking changes. That isn't necessarily wrong. It's just the words in the Bible provoking us with new, fresh ideas and insights. There's nothing special about the words, except for the story they tell -- the story of how someone else was provoked, not by the Bible, but by a direct encounter with God/Christ. In other words, Paul, Peter, James and John were provoked and inspired in their relationship with God. They wrote about that experience. The idea then, I guess is to rediscover that experience in order to discover the Bible/Christianity's true meaning.