Theological Opinions

[Lief Erikson]

To run may well be better than killing or fighting. It might be. This depends on the circumstances. However, as the leader of a nation there is only one choice. Running is not an option, so fighting is the only one. I think that there is also a time to stand and fight with your family too, but I'm not sure what the balance is. If you're up against criminals, you have a high responsibility for your family, and you are highly vulnerable. Getting your family out of harm's way should be a high priority on your mind.

[Nurvingiel]

Sorry to abruptly change the subject Lief. Rohirrim TR asked me a question in "How to teach evolution and evidence for creationism II" and I thought this was the better thread in which to answer it.

Originally from "How to teach evolution and evidence for creationism II":

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

if its not too personal a question, what would you categorize your world view as at this time? don't answer if thats too personal, i'm just curious

Let's see. My world view... how would I categorize it...

I was raised as an Anglican, and though I no longer attend church, I still identify myself as an Anglican. I'm very socially liberal, and I believe very much in sustainability. I study forestry at university, and I strongly believe that we can manage the world's forests in a sustainable way, so that future generations can have some trees too. I think the principles of sustainable forestry can be applied to other environmental issues such as clean drinking water, agriculture, designing and building cities, transportation, global warming, and even the very unfortunate situation of ocean fisheries.

I'm not a very religious person, but I am very spiritual. While science, especially forestry since I actually know somethign about it, does form a good portion of my world view, spirituality is also very significant.
One aspect of Christianity that I really love is the mystery. There are a lot of mysteries and unanswered questions that I think Christians should examine, think about, and question. For example, what exactly happened in the tomb after Jesus died? We don't know exactly what happened, but we do know that something amazing happened after. Probably He did ascend into heaven. I don't think it's a big stretch to believe that. How? We don't know that either.

But something so powerful happened that the remaining, persecuted desciples willingly returned to risk their lives, risk crucification, to continue Jesus' teachings. That's pretty amazing. It's stuff like that that I just love about Christianity. Not to mention that it's a very loving religion.

That's my beliefs in a nut shell. Feel free to ask me anything if you want.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

For example, what exactly happened in the tomb after Jesus died? We don't know exactly what happened, but we do know that something amazing happened after. Probably He did ascend into heaven. I don't think it's a big stretch to believe that. How? We don't know that either.

well actually we know WHAT happened, although "how exactly" would fall under miracle: cannot be explained by laws of nature or observations of science.
again his ascension qualifies as a miracle, and is inexplicable by natural means

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But something so powerful happened that the remaining, persecuted desciples willingly returned to risk their lives, risk crucification, to continue Jesus' teachings. That's pretty amazing. It's stuff like that that I just love about Christianity. Not to mention that it's a very loving religion.

That's my beliefs in a nut shell. Feel free to ask me anything if you want.

what happened was the holy spirit came upon the believers and they became new creatures, "in the world but not of it" like in the book of Romans reference, about "not conforming to the world but being transformed, by the renewing of your mind"

but there are a lot of mysteries that i don't think we will get to know until we are in heaven

BTW thanks for answering

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

well actually we know WHAT happened, although "how exactly" would fall under miracle: cannot be explained by laws of nature or observations of science.
again his ascension qualifies as a miracle, and is inexplicable by natural means

what happened was the holy spirit came upon the believers and they became new creatures, "in the world but not of it" like in the book of Romans reference, about "not conforming to the world but being transformed, by the renewing of your mind"

I completely agree with you about miracles. They are part of the wonderful mysteries of Christianity.

I admit ignorance of the book of Romans, so you could very well be right. My earlier point was just that we can't necessarily say "we KNOW it happened like this", but we can definitely say, "it MAY have happened like this".
I think miracles, such as Jesus' ascension, are very hard to interpret. While this belief is certainly logical and possible, it's not necessarily true IMO.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

but there are a lot of mysteries that i don't think we will get to know until we are in heaven

BTW thanks for answering

I also agree with you about mysteries. Now I'm curious, what is your world view in a nutshell? (You don't have to answer, but I am curious.)

[rohirrim TR]

I am a christian, who has accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I tend to go to the right politically, and i try to form my world view from bible, this is kind of rushed but basically, that is it, ask anything you want about me, but i may not answer until tomorrow gotta go

[Butterbeer]

heh, where's lief?

(he says somewhat cheekily not being around here much meself)

Lief, you KNOW you are always welcome to post anywhere and especially here!

Rohirrim:

well actually we know WHAT happened, although "how exactly" would fall under miracle: cannot be explained by laws of nature or observations of science.
again his ascension qualifies as a miracle, and is inexplicable by natural means

i think you slightly miss the point here (as i see it) ...

lumping it as a miracle, kind of denegrates the mystery somewhat and in some ways is akin to a scientific label .... my take on beleif is that it just that : it is THE ACT of BELEIVING that is as much important as anything else

by saying "we KNOW what happened" is in some ways (from my humble view) going against what God wanted us to do: believe and take in the mystery of the trinity.

we cannot know of God nor heaven nor the intricacies of his thoughts ... but we can beleive in them and follow the commandments ....

i fear organised religion takes too much onto itself in the name of God, and that it is therefore unpure unto the highest.

The very assumption that we know the thoughts and will and mysteries of God and can blithely translate it into human thought, word and knowledge seem to me (again in my humble opinion) to justify this beleif.

Now do not get me wrong Rohirrim, i am not having a go, i admire those who truly beleive and have no qualm with them ... i just have a problem with theological thinking that is straight-jacketted by man and often to my view seems expediently at odds against the words of christ .... thou shalt not kill being a prime example, as we were discussing...

i just feel we should be careful when we say we "know" of the mysterious of God.

Nurv: i share some of your view, i am more spiritual than "religious"

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

heh, where's lief
Rohirrim:


i think you slightly miss the point here (as i see it) ...

lumping it as a miracle, kind of denegrates the mystery somewhat and in some ways is akin to a scientific label .... my take on beleif is that it just that : it is THE ACT of BELEIVING that is as much important as anything else

by saying "we KNOW what happened" is in some ways (from my humble view) going against what God wanted us to do: believe and take in the mystery of the trinity.

we cannot know of God nor heaven nor the intricacies of his thoughts ... but we can beleive in them and follow the commandments ....

i fear organised religion takes too much onto itself in the name of God, and that it is therefore unpure unto the highest.

The very assumption that we know the thoughts and will and mysteries of God and can blithely translate it into human thought, word and knowledge seem to me (again in my humble opinion) to justify this beleif.

Now do not get me wrong Rohirrim, i am not having a go, i admire those who truly beleive and have no qualm with them ... i just have a problem with theological thinking that is straight-jacketted by man and often to my view seems expediently at odds against the words of christ .... thou shalt not kill being a prime example, as we were discussing...

i just feel we should be careful when we say we "know" of the mysterious of God.

I think i understand what you mean by "organised religion" its like people almost try to limit or compartmentalise God.

and i'm not sure i agree with you on the mystery of God, i mean what i meant when i said "i know.etc.." was that i know "what" happened, not the whole scientific process that might or might not, have happened, i personally don't think that you can simplify the mystery of God. the trinity is a great example, it is totally mind boggling,(boggling hehee i like that word) i digress. it is beyond human comprehension, something that is so unfathomable can not lose its mystery no matter how people try to describe it

I really don't like words like "religion" and "spirituality" it just seems to me that words like that have lost their meaning and don't really mean anything to people, either that or it brings to mind realllly boring church from when they were a kid. I go to a non denominational church, because the whole denomination thing got really petty among the churches, and we found this current church that has good theology and they're not hung up on whether you are protestant, catholic, babtist or whatever, its about the brotherhood of Jesus Christ,

[Lief Erikson]

Nurvi and Butterbeer, what does being "spiritual" mean to you two, and what is the benefit of it?

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

i fear organised religion takes too much onto itself in the name of God, and that it is therefore unpure unto the highest.

The very assumption that we know the thoughts and will and mysteries of God and can blithely translate it into human thought, word and knowledge seem to me (again in my humble opinion) to justify this beleif.

Let me suggest to you that the reverse is true. Let me suggest that the idea that God cannot translate part of his will and mysteries into human thought, word and knowledge takes too much unto itself in the name of humanity, and therefore is unpure unto the highest.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Probably He did ascend into heaven. I don't think it's a big stretch to believe that. How? We don't know that either.

The ascension into heaven was witnessed by the disciples, who were willing to die for their beliefs, as you've said. So there definitely is good reason for believing it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But something so powerful happened that the remaining, persecuted desciples willingly returned to risk their lives, risk crucification, to continue Jesus' teachings. That's pretty amazing. It's stuff like that that I just love about Christianity. Not to mention that it's a very loving religion.

I definitely agree. It's particularly neat what the disciples described as having happened to them. They described the powerful experience they had with Jesus, and it makes sense that if what they said is true, that would change their certain unbelief (they rejected the accounts of the witnesses until they met Jesus themselves) into certain belief. Even this experience wasn't enough to thrust the disciples forward into their ministry, however. What truly transformed them was the arrival of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit is still experienced in the same awe-inspiring drama to this day. The Holy Spirit today is where Christian faith moves from reminiscence to actual experience.

[Spock]

Your pain is on trial in Pennsylvania....as this topic also spills over into C.D.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/t...017-1971409122

[rohirrim TR]

spock i think your OT don't we have two other threads for ID V. Evolution stuff?

[Spock]

It's called band width spillover or "something completely different" to make you stop and think. It's a pun.

[rohirrim TR]

interesting, i guess your right in a way, the religion and theology of evolution is being challenged by ID findings and is trying to keep ID findings from finding their way into the classroom,....so in a twisted sort of way it is on topic

[Insidious Rex]

Now see what you did spock. Another thread reduced to the evolution/creationism argument.

From your article:

The school district is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

Thats pretty funny. It has nothing to do with religion and they have a group like that doing the defending. Id say they just tipped their cards right there.

"...to defend the religious freedom of christians" by having christian doctrine taught in public schools apparently.

[Spock]

Chit-Chat is reserved for The Tea Cup Cafe ONLY-that type of post and off topic remarks, do not belong in topic threads.

THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ENTMOOT RULES AND T.P.T.B.

Mia Culpa.

[brownjenkins]

how come?

[Butterbeer]

Lief Erikson

Nurvi and Butterbeer, what does being "spiritual" mean to you two, and what is the benefit of it?

Let me suggest to you that the reverse is true. Let me suggest that the idea that God cannot translate part of his will and mysteries into human thought, word and knowledge takes too much unto itself in the name of humanity, and therefore is unpure unto the highest.

The benefit is surely to my mind the same as it is to you.

To me spritual means that you can beleive in God. For me the act of beleif itself is the key thing. There are a basic ten commandments to follow and the rest, is subject to the influence of man over many many centuries.


regarding your quote above lief, ... i quite agree, it is effectively a pallendromic type of quote, i.e. works equally both ways to my thinking...

except...
(now, you were waiting for that bit, i can tell ... )

except the last line ...how could it be that God cannot translate his will, mysteries and thought into mere humans ... YET his own ability to penetrate the lesser souls of mankind (who are not maybe capable of this level of understanding) be "unpure unto the Highest" ???

best BB

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

To me spritual means that you can beleive in God. For me the act of beleif itself is the key thing.

Then isn't anyone spiritual? An Atheist believes that there is no God. Many Crusaders believed that butchering as many Muslims as possible was good and right. They too believed in God.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

There are a basic ten commandments to follow and the rest, is subject to the influence of man over many many centuries.

Some New Testament documents date from the early third century AD. That hardly counts as "centuries of influence of man". They also are extremely reliable, and I can point to numerous evidences to back this claim. The Old Testament has been around for centuries, but the Jews took such care of their Old Testament that they destroyed any manuscript they were writing if it had even the tiniest variation from the previous texts. There is a lot of evidence for the reliability of those scriptures too.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

regarding your quote above lief, ... i quite agree, it is effectively a pallendromic type of quote, i.e. works equally both ways to my thinking...

I don't think it does. You see, if I'm right, and God can reveal his will to mortals, then it isn't arrogant of Christian organized churches to claim that they are the voice. It certainly isn't "unpure unto the highest." It only is unpure unto the highest if they are wrong.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

except...
(now, you were waiting for that bit, i can tell ... )

except the last line ...how could it be that God cannot translate his will, mysteries and thought into mere humans ... YET his own ability to penetrate the lesser souls of mankind (who are not maybe capable of this level of understanding) be "unpure unto the Highest" ???

best BB

Are you saying that it may be unpure for God to reveal his truth to people?

I don't really follow .

[Butterbeer]

wotcha Lief! how you doing?

regarding beleif and spiritual ... well firstly i do not have an exact definition and CERTAINLY not one that relates in any other way to other people ... you asked me Lief for my thoughts and views .. i.e. mine individually .... i cannot nor will-not speak for others past, present and future ... beyond that your points are meaningless to me. many do many things in all manner of God's names .... are they beleiving purely? some maybe, some not ... the distinction i make between respecting a person's personal beleifs is that they truly hold them, here in the Uk there are many millions of nominal "christians" but a small percentage actually beleive as i would describe it.

from 3rd century to 21st century is a fair old time, so i cannot agree with you there either, it is many many lives of men.

regarding the quote you appear to be confused by your own answer! .. if i have read that right?

t'was you not me saying 'cannot' in relation to God: when you said the reverse position was true ... now that seemed to me to be odd! For, how COULD this be unpure to the highest IF by the Highest????

so, i do not understand you, either!


best though, BB

[Nurvingiel]

*bump*

If you aren't sure that Jesus is the Son of God, are you still a Christian?

(This belief seems rather... er... fundamental. But then again Christians hold extremely varied beliefs, and I certainly don't view it as a restrictive belief system.)

[inked]

If any man would be saved, he must believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. See John 20:28.


psst - Check out your PB!