Theological Opinions

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Yes - there is variation in Christian beliefs - but there is also a lot that is common among all or almost all Christians. The distinctions are usually on the finer points - and the less substantial ones.

I agree.

(funny, Val, I noticed that "submit reply" button, too! )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I get it now... and yet I don't. I see what you mean, but I still don't understand all of it.

I understand that someone can be a leader without somehow being superior. We see this a lot in everyday life. However, I'm having difficulty with this concept in a marriage of two equal people where one is in charge, though not superior. It works and it doesn't. My brain... hurts...

I've read thru your subsequent posts and I think despite my inadequacies as a writer you're starting to understand what I'm trying to explain. See my work example for how peers can have a leader.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

As i understand it is a two way thing often misunderstood and rarely truly pratcisied: the wife should submit to the will of the husband true, but he is charged with a solemn duty to love , respect and never to harm his wife (obviously paraphrasing wildly here from memory of filming a wedding service at an abbey) so yeah i do kinda understand what you are saying and since it seems you are both equally devout (if right word??) it does to a large degree explain your position: one has to appreciate that you and your husband are let us say Chrisitians in the REAL sense as opposed to the common or garden nominal sort that makes up the vast majority: and there is a real big difference between really beleiving and trying to live the moral codes of your belief and knowing the words as it were. So fair play.

It does obviously bring you into inevitable conflict with the real world (real as in modern commonality of experience, "belief", world views etc - esp in the West anyway):

no kidding! But I think one should do what is right even if it's unpopular.

I still think JD is right though: what is the problem since you state it clearly numerously stating that effectively (in your own terms for sure) your Husband is the leader?

I don't understand; what is the problem you're talking about?

Hadn't thought to read the vacum line that way, but its very Monty python when you do! Nooobody expects their beleifs to be sucked out by the Spanish DYson!

LOL! Ni!

NO: i'm pretty sure you've thought about it or at least are a genuine Christian and following belief: my issue is more how much do genuine Christians or rather should Gc's doctinally follow every last word and utterence, penned in the main by man many centuries ago and translated and tranliterated over many more centuries etc? how much should you question the details of written words and make individual decisions on each one's relevance and moral importance PROVIDED (from your point of view) you are surein your faith and know you are leading a morally good life etc?

Just an aside - it looks like you might hold with a misunderstanding I've seen before that new translations are based entirely on old ones and thus the errors accumulate. This is incorrect - translators refer back to the original language.

The rest of the question is an excellent one, and I'd love to deal with it later (as well as the rest of the post) - gtg now (I already have 5 posts in a row! )

Are you confident and secure enough in your faith to be a free thinker AND a good christian or do you feel that you must half blindly follow any doctrine no matter how (whatever)

will just quickly answer - yes to the first part; no to the second.

...and why oh why cannot we agree IF thefinal say goes to your Husband then effectively by anyones rightful thinking he clearly CAN be seen as a Leader (if not please re-define the word for us)

oh, ok, one more quick answer - yes, he's the leader, but not in the sense of being superior, like I said a few posts ago. Does that make sense? See, sometimes a leader is superior, sometimes a leader is a peer, as I explained in a previous post. In this case, IMO it's a case of the leader (the husband) being a peer with the wife - NOT superior (or inferior, for that matter, as is currently in vogue to joke about), but a peer.

[inked]

[QUOTE=jerseydevil]See - I also don't think anyone is emminently qualified ot state what christians beleives and whether I am practicing the religion right now is not an issue. it's not like my mind was wiped clean you know. however - there are MANY different beliefs in christianity - and for people to say that christians believe this or that is completely wrong.[QUOTE/]

Not precisely accurate, JD. The creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian) as well as Oecumenical Councils of the undivided Church do actually define the Faith. But what I think you intend is that the individual may not be eminently qualified to (pardon me) pontificate to the exclusion of other Christians in what is known as "individual interpretation". This gets to the heart of submission as a biblical principle in general.

Christians of the persuasion you note do make certain assumptions and actions as normative within their subculture. Catholic christians (Roman, Anglican, Orthodox, Uniate) have a differing culture or cultures. All Christians are not alike anymore than all atheists are George Bernard Shaw.

[Rían]

For quotes: Put [quote=personsname] at the beginning of the section you want to quote, and [/quote] at the end.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

there you are butterbeer, tidied up

my thanks

[Butterbeer]

with respect to both you Rian, and JD could we get away from the (entertaining to a degree) pointless warfare (i'm sure you both enjoy it: forgetting for a momment the almost certain pratical impossibilities - you guys should get married! anyone else agree? -but thats a whole other -come to think of it -Totally relevant to this discussion - thread?)

Valandil: LCOU is 100% quite correct re: English History a modern day "wedding Breakfast" relates back to the law or custom relating to any unhappy Husband being able to sell her at market before Breakfast (i think within 24 hrs of Wedlock? - but true nonthe less

[jerseydevil]

Not precisely accurate, JD. The creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian) as well as Oecumenical Councils of the undivided Church do actually define the Faith. But what I think you intend is that the individual may not be eminently qualified to (pardon me) pontificate to the exclusion of other Christians in what is known as "individual interpretation". This gets to the heart of submission as a biblical principle in general.

Christians of the persuasion you note do make certain assumptions and actions as normative within their subculture. Catholic christians (Roman, Anglican, Orthodox, Uniate) have a differing culture or cultures. All Christians are not alike anymore than all atheists are George Bernard Shaw.

I am accurate - i am referring to the different Christian faiths - I am not talking about individual christians - but the different faiths. To say that all christian religions believe this or that is incorrect. That is the point I am making. Just because Rian or valandil or your religion believes something - does not mean that the other Christian religions believe or support something.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

As for believing what you were taught - you're rejecting the whole BASIS for believing what you were taught, aren't you?

I know JD already answered this, but this statement got me thinking, "Is there a point to Christianity without a belief in God?" I think that someone doesn't necessarily have to be a Christian to learn something from it. Just because JD is no longer a Christian doesn't necessarily mean Catholicism didn't have anything useful to say to him.

Originally Posted by Valandil

Yes - there is variation in Christian beliefs - but there is also a lot that is common among all or almost all Christians. The distinctions are usually on the finer points - and the less substantial ones.

I agree, but it does depend on what you view as finer and substantial points. The bare, bare, bones is believing in God, and that Jesus is the Son of God, and He died for our sins.
This is all I share with the main character of The Poisonwood Bible (even though he never narrates) Nathan Price (a Southern Baptist missionary who goes to the Congo, bringing his family with him). But he would still say I'm his sister in Christ, and then probably say I'm a sinner for the rest of my beliefs.
(I'm very into this book at the moment. I recommend it. )
Anyway I digress. I don't think what you use for Communion is the important part, the grape juice or the wine represents (or is) Jesus's blood - that's the point, that He died for us. (Bringing us back to the three substantial points.)
Mary is important though. Perhaps this is a substantial point on which different Christians disagree, but hey, that's why we have denominations right?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I can certainly try to express what I think is true, and that's what I did. There are such things as peer groups with an assigned leader, and that's how I feel a marriage operates.

I understand what you're saying about leadership and equality - the reason I still disagree in this point is that I don't think a marriage needs such a structure. (It's not, IMO, like doing a project with someone at work or school.)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I am accurate - i am referring to the different Christian faiths - I am not talking about individual christians - but the different faiths. To say that all christian religions believe this or that is incorrect. That is the point I am making. Just because Rian or valandil or your religion believes something - does not mean that the other Christian religions believe or support something.

If this were true, Mormonism right now would be part of Christianity, as would Jehovah's Witness. We aren't so lax about which things we accept and which we don't. There are details that can be disagreed on between denominations within Christianity, but there are also major essentials of Christian faith that no one has the right to disagree on.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Having met a lot of different religions - I really don't think that is much of the case in many instances. Take the issue of Mary for instance - what her role was and her importance. That is looked down upon by other religions - yet it is a very important point for Catholics. Luthers use grape juice for communion. They're claim is that jesus only used wine as a metaphor and that it was really just grape juice - hence they only use grape juice for communion. I also don't understand christian religions where they only have communion during certain masses. In the catholic church - communion is every mass. Of course then everyone says that Catholics are a bunch of alcoholics. But hey - I think most of the complaints about catholicism is from lack of understanding anyway.

There are Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims too. They are all Muslims. The fact that there are different branches within a specific religion does not mean that we're talking about different religions. Just as one atheist might hold himself to a tight moral code of behavior, whereas another goes completely loose and does whatever he wants. They have vastly divergant views, but they each believe the essential tennent of atheism- there is no God. Christianity is the same. Within Christianity there are different branches, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, its errors and accuracies. None of them can be accurately called a different Christian religion. They are the same religion, but there are differences of opinion within that religion. There are certain essential truths that must be believed to be a Christian, and then there are details which people can disagree on. People's manner of holding communion is a detail, as are the issues of infant baptism, evolution vs 7 days, the extent of the significance of Mother Mary, etc. These aren't issues that determine whether or not a person is a Christian or not.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - religion isn't so much about believing - it's about inheriting what you are taught and the environment you were brought up in. The die hard christian if they were born in the Middle east - would most likely be Muslim and believe just as strongly that they were right, if they were born in India - they would most likely be Hindi. So religion has more to do with where one was born - than what one actually discovered and learned on one's own.

There are many major exceptions, though. Where Christianity has come into contact with pagan cultures, frequently there has been vast success. When our missionaries contacted China and Japan, there were great responses. St. Patrick's activities in Ireland spurred massive conversion that covered nearly the entire island. Modern evangelistic crusades often win thousands and even millions of converts.

Frequently people stick with the religion in which they were brought up, as you say, but there are nonetheless major exceptions. Doubtless there are many examples I could point to outside of Christianity as well.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

IAnyway I digress. I don't think what you use for Communion is the important part, the grape juice or the wine represents (or is) Jesus's blood - that's the point, that He died for us. (Bringing us back to the three substantial points.)
Mary is important though. Perhaps this is a substantial point on which different Christians disagree, but hey, that's why we have denominations right?

Yep. Communion is important too, though. Catholics think that communion bread and wine are actually physically transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ- just sort of in disguise. So that is an important point of contention. However, it isn't important enough to mean that we're dealing with different Christian religions.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by lief

When our missionaries contacted China and Japan, there were great responses

so great that the shogun forces rose up repeatedly against the foreigners, and japan isolated itself from the world completely, except for a small dutch trading colony in what is now the region nigh to Kobe, and in china the response was so great that the once peaceful shinto monks became warlords, employing vast armies to protect their small lands from who they saw as invaders, trying to destroy the faiths of the lands, namely mahayana buddhism, zen buddhism, confucianism, shinto and taoism

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If this were true, Mormonism right now would be part of Christianity, as would Jehovah's Witness. We aren't so lax about which things we accept and which we don't. There are details that can be disagreed on between denominations within Christianity, but there are also major essentials of Christian faith that no one has the right to disagree on.

yeah - the only true thing that all Christianity believes in is Christ as the son of god and savior. Most things are up for disagreement though.

There are Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims too. They are all Muslims. The fact that there are different branches within a specific religion does not mean that we're talking about different religions. Just as one atheist might hold himself to a tight moral code of behavior, whereas another goes completely loose and does whatever he wants. They have vastly divergant views, but they each believe the essential tennent of atheism- there is no God. Christianity is the same. Within Christianity there are different branches, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, its errors and accuracies.

Atheism is not a religon and is not a group of people with shared values - like a religion. Your comparison to atheism makes no sense. Your comments show a complete lack of understanding of beign atheist is - because you want to act as ifg there is a overal atheistic organization with branches out of it - like religions have.

None of them can be accurately called a different Christian religion. They are the same religion, but there are differences of opinion within that religion.

They aren't the same religion - they are DIFFERENT religions. You may want to think of them as all the same - but they aren't.

There are certain essential truths that must be believed to be a Christian, and then there are details which people can disagree on. People's manner of holding communion is a detail, as are the issues of infant baptism, evolution vs 7 days, the extent of the significance of Mother Mary, etc. These aren't issues that determine whether or not a person is a Christian or not.

I didn't say they were issues that determined if someone was CHRISTIAN or not. I said they were issues that the various Christian religions disagreed on. and for Valandil and others to say that "All Christians believe such and such" is erroneous statements.

There are many major exceptions, though. Where Christianity has come into contact with pagan cultures, frequently there has been vast success. When our missionaries contacted China and Japan, there were great responses. St. Patrick's activities in Ireland spurred massive conversion that covered nearly the entire island. Modern evangelistic crusades often win thousands and even millions of converts.

Evangelicals annoy the hell out of me. And i can NOT stand people who go around trying to convert people. Especially the annoying peopel who go knocking on doors.

Frequently people stick with the religion in which they were brought up, as you say, but there are nonetheless major exceptions. Doubtless there are many examples I could point to outside of Christianity as well.

There are- but still about 95% of the people who are a particular religion are that way because they grew up within that religion. It has very little to do with overall believe and more to do with what one is used to. Pure and simple.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

They aren't the same religion - they are DIFFERENT religions. You may want to think of them as all the same - but they aren't.

Mormonism and Christianity are different religions, but Anglicanism, Catholicism, Lutheranism et al are all Christian denominations. Why aren't Jehova's Witnesses Christian? What do they feel about it?
Also, don't Mormons consider themselves Christians, despite holding the Book of Mormon equal to the Bible? I guess that's another thing for the 'List of things all Christians believe' - the Bible has to be the only holy book. (I think there are other books in the world that are holy, but the Bible is the only one that has spiritual meaning to me.)

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Evangelicals annoy the hell out of me.

Well I guess they were successful then! *rimshot*

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And i can NOT stand people who go around trying to convert people. Especially the annoying peopel who go knocking on doors.

I agree. I do not agree with the idea of having a missionary. Ever.
Missionaries aren't solely the product of people believing that if you weren't Christian then you would go to hell (which, being decent people by and large, they didn't want to happen to anyone). There is at least one other factor at work - being members of a society so arrogant that they were encouraged to go 'civilize the savages'. People may not have felt that their religion was the only right answer if they weren't members of a society that thought it was the only right answer.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There are- but still about 95% of the people who are a particular religion are that way because they grew up within that religion. It has very little to do with overall believe and more to do with what one is used to. Pure and simple.

You do have a point, but at the same time, if you couldn't be socially liberal and Christian at the same time, I probably would have left the church by now. I realized this recently, and was a bit alarmed. Happily, this combination works.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

so great that the shogun forces rose up repeatedly against the foreigners, and japan isolated itself from the world completely, except for a small dutch trading colony in what is now the region nigh to Kobe, and in china the response was so great that the once peaceful shinto monks became warlords, employing vast armies to protect their small lands from who they saw as invaders, trying to destroy the faiths of the lands, namely mahayana buddhism, zen buddhism, confucianism, shinto and taoism

I realize that there were major persecutions following the conversions. That doesn't undermine the argument about the initial impact. 500,000 had converted to Christianity in Japan, before the persecution began. Massive numbers in China too.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

yeah - the only true thing that all Christianity believes in is Christ as the son of god and savior. Most things are up for disagreement though.

Many things are up for disagreement. Not the most important things, though, the key essentials. Those are not up for disagreement. You have rejected Inked's words about the key essentials of Christianity remaining through all the denominations. You have yet to offer any evidence indicating strong variance in the essential teachings of Christianity. Can you show that accepted Christian denominations of modern times differ on the acceptance of "The creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian) as well as Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church"?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Atheism is not a religon and is not a group of people with shared values - like a religion. Your comparison to atheism makes no sense. Your comments show a complete lack of understanding of beign atheist is - because you want to act as ifg there is a overal atheistic organization with branches out of it - like religions have.

Your comment on my understanding of atheism is rather off-topic from my main point of what you were responding to, about denominations (or the equivalent of denominations) existing within other religions that are still considered denominations rather then variant religions. Catholicism and Protestantism are considered two different parts of one religion Christianity. Unless you're going to argue that all religions, where they differ on minor issues, are actually hundreds of religions.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Quote:
There are certain essential truths that must be believed to be a Christian, and then there are details which people can disagree on. People's manner of holding communion is a detail, as are the issues of infant baptism, evolution vs 7 days, the extent of the significance of Mother Mary, etc. These aren't issues that determine whether or not a person is a Christian or not.

I didn't say they were issues that determined if someone was CHRISTIAN or not. I said they were issues that the various Christian religions disagreed on. and for Valandil and others to say that "All Christians believe such and such" is erroneous statements.

I would like to see evidence that indicates otherwise. If we replace the word "religion" with the word "denomination" in most of your comments on this matter, I'd agree with you. Denominations distinguish people from one another who disagree on details but agree on the essentials of the religion.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Quote:
There are many major exceptions, though. Where Christianity has come into contact with pagan cultures, frequently there has been vast success. When our missionaries contacted China and Japan, there were great responses. St. Patrick's activities in Ireland spurred massive conversion that covered nearly the entire island. Modern evangelistic crusades often win thousands and even millions of converts.

Evangelicals annoy the hell out of me. And i can NOT stand people who go around trying to convert people. Especially the annoying peopel who go knocking on doors.

I personally don't mind at all having Mormons come by knocking on our door, just because it gives such a great opportunity for discussion . I know Christians who feel the same way as you do, though.

Anyway, whether evangelicals annoy you or not, their major success amongst people raised non-Christian is a strong indicator that people are ready to change from one religion to another.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There are- but still about 95% of the people who are a particular religion are that way because they grew up within that religion. It has very little to do with overall believe and more to do with what one is used to. Pure and simple.

That's what I am doing my utmost to fight against among Christians, at the church I attend. Too many people are cultural Christians, people that accept something without truly believing it. What's maddening is that people like this often have a real pride issue that it's tough to get around. They're Christian, they're baptized, so they're saved. But Christianity is so much more. Helping people to come to realize that who already think they have everything there is to have can really be very hard. Especially doing that without spurring massive indignation and anger.

I don't know about your 95% statistic. I don't know what the statistic is, but I agree with you that many Christians aren't real Christians, many Muslims aren't real Muslims and many Hindus aren't real Hindus. They don't really believe the stuff, but believe it because they're brought up with it. Also often they don't have anything come upon them that really challenges their thinking. Pain or hardship often causes people to question and to really think, whatever religion they belong to. It causes them to really ponder, and sometimes can instigate a search for God. Other times it can instigate a repulsion from God. People often just aren't interested enough to move out of their comfort zone and really tackle the issues or think about them. Remove the comfort zone, and there's no barrier left.

I agree that many people are this way, and I hate that. I understand it intellectually, but I hate it. People prefer not to think, prefer to do their own thing. Ambivalence .

You and I, I think, are in general agreement over ambivalence being disgusting and VERY commonplace. Massive conversions do happen though, from one religion to another, where ambivalence is weak. I don't know that the fact that ambivalence exists says much about the religions themselves- only about the people. Just as politics manipulating religions doesn't necessarily say anything about the religions- only about the politics. I don't really understand your argument here .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree. I do not agree with the idea of having a missionary. Ever.
Missionaries aren't solely the product of people believing that if you weren't Christian then you would go to hell (which, being decent people by and large, they didn't want to happen to anyone). There is at least one other factor at work - being members of a society so arrogant that they were encouraged to go 'civilize the savages'. People may not have felt that their religion was the only right answer if they weren't members of a society that thought it was the only right answer.

Missionaries have been about since the very beginning of Christianity. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." Someone wanting to spread "the way, the truth and the life," to others I would think should be considered kind and loving. Eternal life is of some value . This, of course, is only so long the evangelism is done in a gentle and humble manner, with a readiness to withdraw when rejected.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I do not agree with the idea of having a missionary. Ever.

Perhaps you aren't aware of how some missionaries are, like those from our church. There's one missionary from our church who works with disabled kids in India. They're despised in their culture, and abandoned by their families; she loves them and takes care of them and helps them (she's a physical therapist). Would you like to email her and ask her to abandon them?

There's some other missionaries from our church that live in a Romanian orphange with abandoned and orphaned Gypsy children and help take care of them. Shall I give you their email addys so you can tell them you don't like what they're doing, since they're missionaries?

Some friends of ours just left for Papua New Guinea. There are tribes there who have been asking for missionaries to come for 10 years or more. They'll probably be there 15 to 20 years, living among them, giving them medical help, learning their language, making a written language for them, and teaching them to read and write, etc. etc. Next time I talk to them, shall I suggest that they leave, even tho the tribe has been waiting for over 10 years for a missionary to come?

I totally agree that the "colonizing" missionaries were harmful and wrong. However, I think you may not be aware of how many missionaries are today, and all the good they do, and how they work WITHIN the culture.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I understand what you're saying about leadership and equality - the reason I still disagree in this point is that I don't think a marriage needs such a structure. (It's not, IMO, like doing a project with someone at work or school.)

OK - I think we're probably done with the subject of Biblical submission in marriage, then - is that right, people?

(and butterbeer - did you see my 2 posts in response to yours?)

And I would agree with you marriage is NOT like a project at work or school - yet the concept of leadership among peers is a pretty good analogy for how I feel it works, so that's why I shared it.

[Butterbeer]

[QUOTE=RÃ*an]OK - I think we're probably done with the subject of Biblical submission in marriage, then - is that right, people?

(and butterbeer - did you see my 2 posts in response to yours?)[QUOTE]



i did thanks, i'm happy if you are.
regarding tranlsations and transliterations, well i think it'd be foolish to assume everything is or would be hunky-dory and perfect: for a start language changes over time as do meaning and (effectively) inlection or tone or nuance and even at the smallest lowest levels mistakes or innacuracies are bound to occur. This but the merest tip of a huge ocean iceburg of potential causes.

My position on this is that this should be taken as read by any intelligent person whether religious or not: the question is not to what extent it occurs but what approach individuals take in realtion to their moral and spitirtual interpretations or practical living belif systems.

I will say here and now anydebate or dispute that it happens at all, just won't cut any mustard with me and i'd not enter any further into it!

Thanks for taking the time to respond though: i found the debate interesting esp when it was clash between idealogies and
cultural perceptions rather than just a clash.


Though not my cup of tea, its good to know that there are genuine beleivers out there: i have muchmore respect for real christians or any other beleivers if they are true to what they beleive (at least on a personal level) though like JD i certainly do not want it thrust at me or unthinkingedly followed by others: as i said i trust and beleive from what you've said and argued that this is not the case with yourself Rian, so good luck!

Ps if evolution is correct, what is your problem (if any) with saying God created the universe etc to evolve scientifically?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

What is our next theological discussion then?