Religion

I'll chime in here. I am theologically conservative with a leaning toward a moderate position in some areas. Certain areas capture the conservativism in me: like abortion or homosexuality. On the other hand, I believe that the traditional take on women in the ministry is woefully misinterpreted in most modern circles.

While I'm quick to form an opinion on various issues - I am willing to listen to opposing viewpoints.

Kind regards,
Steven King

 

Caution is in order here, Steven. The old timers said this was an oxymoron, but of course they didn't use that term.

Thankfully, we have seen the light.

 

Re: *S*

I use the term "neo-pagan" to distinguish the relatively recent pagan revival from the many forms of ancient paganism.

'Pagan', after all, was a perjorative word adopted by the late Roman Christians to refer to anyone who wasn't a Christian or a Jew. That takes in a tremendous amount of territory and includes a whole multitude of dissimilar religions, philosophies and other practices active in late antiquity.

 

*S*

I understand, I just do not hear that term used very often anymore *S*

 

You know I find Gordon Fee to be a wonderful resource. He is of a Pentecostal background, I believe. I think he is one of the first Pentecostals to actually be taken seriously as an academic by the non-Pentecostal Christian world. (I mean no offense by that last statement, but am just stating the fact as I understand it. If it is incorrect, I will be happy to admit my error and recant my statement. . )

As such, I find that he brings a fresh approach to tons of passages. For instance, his views on women's roles in public assembly are very different than my denomination's, yet his arguments aren't the same arguments. His, in fact, are pretty convincing. I also find his thoughts on not accepting 1 Cor 14:34-35 as truly being scripture to be quite interesting and thought provoking. I am not sure that I agree with him, but I appreciate him as a fine Christian teacher.

clint

 

I am familiar with Gordon Fee's works, most notably in my life was How To Read The Bible For All It's Worth by Fee and Douglas Stuart.

A wonderful starting point for anyone wanting to appreciate the differences of various genre of Scripture.

Steven King

 

Thank God for the light

Thank God for showing us the light!

Steven King

 

Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God.

-Lenny Bruce

Pete
(non-practicing philatelist)

 

I work full-time for a church. I make my living from that church. But I must say that there is actually some truth to those words. However, it seems to me that people like to swing between extremes. On one side are those who rigidly hold to tradition and dogma without knowing why. Even if the tradition is shown to be contrary to scripture, they will hold to tradition, with some crazy "proof" that they are right.
On the other side are those who react to this stringent traditionalism by heading out the other side of the room. They hold little or nothing sacred. Tradition becomes anathema and individualism is the order of the day.

Both of these extremes are wrong. Tradition is good and brings continuity to religion. Worshiping the tradition is wrong, but not tradition itself. Also, freedom for self-expression is good, to a degree. However, try as one might, they really do need other like-minded believers to support, encourage and -yes I will say it -to call you down when you are messing up.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
(I know I am representing Christianity, not other religions by my thoughts here. However, I have little practical experience with other religions)

clint

 

From someone with very little religous experience, your statement would seem true for many if not most religions.

 

I am way in over my head posting to this discussion but if you could indulge me it would be greatly appreciated. Most religions seem to me to have very similiar structures and beliefs. Typically they include a basic moral philosopy, sacred text and duties or responsibilities. In fact to my very untrained eye the similarities seem much greater than the differences. To me this means that they are all seeking the same goal and likely have developed in a very similar path. Many seem to include the philosophy that they are in some way more true to God or his message. If the similarities are so great it would indicate to me the differences come from man not God. If true that would indicate that the very ones that say they are truer to God are actually less true to God. Am I totally off base here? If you believe differently could you please tell me why? Many thanks for your understanding.

 

This is just my perspective as a Christian. Religions share some moral similarities because the reality of God pervades everything. Mankind created in His image is fallen but retains that spark, that now distorted image and awareness which is why we are spiritual creatures.

Although, there are some superficial similarities between Christianity and other religions, Christianity is also unique among the world's religions (cannot be covered here). With a great deal of respect for others sincere beliefs, I have to say that I personally accept the reality of the fact that the God of the Bible IS God & the bible is His inerrant word (inerrant may not be quite what you think but it is too much to go in to at the moment). As we begin with the Bible we can demonstrate that it is devine rather than human in origin (MAPS acronym courtesy of Hank Hanegraaf) through Manuscript evidence, Archeology, Prophecy, the statistical issues surrounding prophecy). Regardless of whether others can see or will see these facts is beside the point (1Cor 1:18).

I sincerely do respect others right to believe as they wish and bear them no ill will. However, a fact cannot be denied whether or not it is recognized or it annoys others. Christians (regardless of Arminian or Calvinist) are called to share that love and reality that is the Gospel with their fellow human beings.

North

 

Personally, I thank you for your post. I appreciate hearing from others - even if their viewpoint differs from my own.

One major (though not the only) reason why I accept Christianity as the true religion - equally accessible by all who accept it, is that contrary to your statement above "Typically they include a basic moral philosopy, sacred text and duties or responsibilities," Christianity has a deeper core component. Though there are certainly "duties and responsibilities" that accompany being a Christian, they are a response to our faith.
What I mean by that is that we do not walk a certain way, or do certain things, in order to be "saved." We do those things because we are saved. We recognize that absolutely nothing we DO will ever EARN salvation - only Christ can provide that. So we view salvation as a gift, not something we deserve.

What I am writing will not convince a skeptic, and that isn't my intention here. Rather, I just wanted to explain what I see as a difference between Christianity and other world religions.
I agree with North, I bear people of other faiths no ill will. These are just my dearly held beliefs.

thanks
clint

 

Clint

No one in their right mindsets would view any of your posts as "offensive."

I may not agree with Judeo-Christian beliefs but how does it hurt me for others to do so?

People with full happy lives will not have the time to be offended by anothers "testimony" of their faith or lack thereof.

 

Others that are difficult place into one of the ten choices (for me, anyway) are Mormonism and Christian Science.

 

Re: Clint

Well, try this for size ...

Is a war without religion being involved a real war?

Is a religion that isn't materially rich a real religion?

Stupid questions? ... may be bu the incidences are undeniable or do we explain them as COincidences?

By the way - you picked a good topic Tom

Peter

 

Hey Peter

I am still not offended *LOL*

 

Re: Hey Peter

...and I won't be offended if you comment on my 'irreligious' statements ... a little levity levitates the discussion maybe?

Peter French MM

 

Re: Re: Clint

I'd answer with two other questions:

Is a war without government being involved a real war?
Is a government that isn't materially rich a real government?

(Ain't I an odd duck to be defending organized religion when I haven't been to church in almost three years, and that was with the Unitarians?)


Cheers,

 

Or look at it this way

1) Why do humans use religion as an excuse to make war

2) Why do humans use religion to become rich

This would be a better place to start, I think.