The Tension of Faith

If by this you mean being honest with yourself and finding the truth inside yourself, sounds good to me. To me it depends upon what kind of book you're reading.A science book? It has evidence behind it, so you shouldn't have to say you don't know.A dating guide? "I don't know," seems like a pretty good answer.A religious book? Which one? The Bible? The Koran? The Bhagavad Gita? They can't all be right, so again, "I don't know," seems like a pretty good answer.--Percy

That misses the point though. Theology is about going from the starting point, (God is Good and resurrected Jesus), and going from there. So yes, I have my views on those things, and my understanding of those issues evolved over the years, with additional prayer, reading and life experience. Some of my theological views have been formed from a very basic understanding of some of the concepts of physics. However they aren’t fundamental. I can change my views on those on still consider myself a Christian. If I know linger believed in the basic goodness of God, (as Tangle does), or if I no longer believed in the resurrection, then even though I believed that Jesus had some really good ideas ,then I wouldn’t call myself a Christian. Sure, and hopefully I continue to grow closer to what is correct but I can’t know whether that is actually the case or not. Yes and no. The originals don’t change, but our ability to interpret the original languages has evolved. For example scholars have learned a lot about what the original authors meant because of having additional material such as the Dead Sea Scrolls allowing greater comprehension.
Aside from that though, there has been in the last half century or so, within Christian scholarship a far greater emphasis on reading the Scriptures within the context of the culture at the time. Reading material with that in mind has no doubt been the largest factor in my evolving theological beliefs. Instead of just reading with my 20/21st century POV, I try and understand it all as if I were a first century Jew living in Middle East. As far as I know right now, I’m the only one whose theology is completely correct, however, I will probably find that I’ll have to revise my theology in future.  I just don’t have a problem with all that. With many failures ,I try and the life that I believe God wants me to live based on what is in my signature. The rest is interesting, informative and helpful but not necessary. My faith is that God’s nature was perfectly embodied in Jesus and is well represented by my signature. I base my life on that. In addition of have other beliefs, (as opposed to faith), that provide context but don’t govern my life. Jesus prayed to the Father, worshipped the Father and claimed an association with the Father that was unique. The Gospel claim, (as well as Paul and others) was that Jesus was resurrected. The idea that it was God the Father who did it really is one of those things that is omitted because it is obvious. Who else would do the job?
Here is a quote from 1 Peter chap 1.

quote:

---

3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

---

Certainly they wrote that He is risen but that was a separate event that was only possible because He had been resurrected first. It is historical in the sense that the authors chronicled their understanding of Yahweh as it applied to the events of their day. I think though that in doing that we should consider that there are biases involved. I am quite sure that if we read an historical account of the Viet Nam war in New Hampshire it might differ considerably to one read in Hanoi. They would however both agree that the war actually happened. I’m not talking about the amount of evidence that we have to support our subjective views, I was only pointing out that all historical views from centuries ago are subjective. Actually there is evidence for my Christian beliefs, it just isn’t sufficient evidence for you. Someone wrote the Gospels years ago and obviously intended them to be believed. It is also clear from the way that the Gospels are written that the writers believed what they wrote. That is evidence that can be believed, discounted or rejected. I choose to believe that essentially they got it right even though there are some discrepancies between the accounts. It isn’t minimizing them but realizing that there are things that we can’t objectively know ,so we have no choice but to come to a subjective conclusion. That wasn’t the point though, and I would agree that morality does not come from religion. My point is that morality comes from a moral intelligence that caused our understanding of right and wrong in the first place, and is not specific to any faith, or even atheism. Morality, in spite of the protestations on this site makes no sense in an existence where there is nothing but material consisting of mindless particles. I guess the question though is; what path are you referring to? Is it a path to how we should conduct our lives in which case I would agree that we can find that in all sorts of places. As I have said before the Golden Rule can be found in most religions and also in secular organizations. The fact that that view is so prevalent gives credence to the idea that it just might be universally true, and is the one right and true path for everyone. The fact that Jesus lived and preached the way He did, and was then resurrected gives credence to the belief that the Golden Rule is consistent with God’s hope for our lives.

Hi GDR,It looks like our discussion has now drifted considerably away from shared beliefs and into the realm of beliefs that make no sense to me, that seem irrational, and that don't even seem Christian. I'm not a Christian, but I think I can recognize Christian views when I see them, and your views seem to deviate considerably from what is normally considered Christian. Finding what works for us is all we can ask for, but I wonder to how great an extent you've carved out a path that even other Christians wouldn't recognize as Christian.Am I wrong about that? Is my view of traditional Christianity that flawed? What do other Christians say when you tell them that, for example, you don't consider Jesus dying for your sins a fundamental tenet of Christianity? But that's your own private definition of theology, even incorporating your own private view of what is fundamental to Christianity. It isn't the actual definition of theology. I don't think I'd be able to understand what is being said, or even what I'm saying myself, were I to try to adopt private definitions.This that you say in your first paragraph about using the concepts from physics: Is completely opposite to what you say in a later paragraph about interpreting Scripture in it's original cultural context: And not consistent with this either, since the Gospel writers wouldn't have been both incorporating concepts of physics while also staying within their own culture: Were I to respond to everything you say this message would become incredibly long and mostly about how your views make no sense to me. So I'll just say that I wish we could have continued to find elements of common belief, but unfortunately to me your views are full of contradictions that you seem to both recognize and ignore at the same time.--Percy

It's not that unusual a position, particularly within the liberal branches of Christianity.It's not that unusual even when looking through a Biblical lens. Most of the references to Jesus in the New Testament are of Jesus teaching about behavior after all.

I’m a member of the Anglican church and my views are pretty consistent with the bulk of Anglicanism. Yes, I believe that Jesus died for our sins but that belief flows from my faith in the resurrection. Without the resurrection Jesus would simply have been another failed messiah and not even a footnote in history. So yes, as I said earlier I have other Christian beliefs, but again they flow fundamentally from the faith that God is good and that He resurrected Jesus.I was trying to differentiate between the faith on which I try to base my life, from the things that flow from that, like the concept of being born again, Jesus dying for our sins etc, and basing those beliefs on scripture, reason tradition and in some cases even personal experience. Here is Webster's def of theology:

quote:

---

the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially :the study of God and of God's relation to the world

---

We all have our own starting point regarding theology even if it’s to say that all religions have got it wrong. My starting point again is that God is good and that Jesus was resurrected. From that I work out as best as I can the answers to the study of God and of God's relation to the world. Well for example I read Genesis to tell me certain things about the purpose of God creating us, His hope for us etc. I look at physics and other sciences to tell me how God did it such as in the study of evolution. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but hopefully this addresses your post. I attempt to understand what we can learn from Genesis, God’s purpose in creating us, where do I fit into that etc within the context of the culture at the time, but I look to the study of evolution to answer the question of how God did it. I think we probably have more common beliefs about Christianity than what you suggest. I know that you are a very bright individual so I can only assume that I’m doing a poor job of explaining my beliefs.

The gleeful persecution Faith inflicts on the forum non-believers is jaw-dropping. It makes me happy she is here and not actually in charge of church doctrine during the Inquisition. When others just like her were actually in charge.Of course had she been back there she would have been held in silence by the men who comprised the clergy.

Well, possibly. My cultural background is Christian because of where I grew up, but I was raised Unitarian, and subsequent musings have led me a considerable distance from even their "big tent" theology.So while possibly we do hold more Christian beliefs in common than we've identified so far, that isn't the direction the discussion has taken. I originally commented because of what we held in common, but now after we've found so many differences it doesn't feel right to me to make up some weasel words about how much more we probably have in common. It feels more honest to just say straight out how your beliefs strike me more as random strands of disconnected belief that you've convinced yourself are interrelated and have meaning. I feel uncomfortable saying that because I don't want to offend you, or offend anyone who is working hard at making themselves understood while not making judgments as if they were God himself (I obviously have someone in mind when I say that last part). Well, you gave a) God is good; and b) God resurrected Jesus; as your fundamental beliefs, but I think there are more than just those two. For example, Beliefs of the Anglican Church (this is the website for a single Anglican church, not for global Anglicanism, if there is such a website) mentions several others. It doesn't mention the "God is good" part, but I agree with you on that one, that it should be one of the fundamental precepts of Christianity. People need to be reminded that God is good. This is especially important after getting lectured by anyone like Faith, since it seems that many religious people speak threats and call it love when engaged in the evangelism that is part of Christianity.Sidenote: I invited a couple convasing JW's into my home recently for a half-hour conversation (they broke it off, not me). I was honest about my beliefs, and they said not a single judgmental word.Backing up a bit, back in Message 347 you wrote: That confused me all to hell, and that confusion was one thing that convinced me to not reply to everything you said, because to do so would have me writing a very long message, but after some further thought, if I understand you correctly, then I think you're likely wrong.My understanding of what you're saying (and naturally the arguments that follow should be ignored if this is wrong) is that you're saying that being resurrected from the dead is a different event than "being risen," which means rising to heaven to be with the Father. I decided to look this up in the ultimate source. Starting in Matthew at 27:53 it seems that Jesus must have been resurrected immediately upon his death (I'm open to other interpretations - it's not like the Bible is an icon of clarity).But though he was already resurrected, he was still dead when a bit later Joseph of Arimathea collected Jesus' body and put it in a tomb.Then Mary comes by three days later and is told in 28:6 "He is not here; for he has risen" and in 28:7 "he has risen from the dead." Matthew definitely does not mean risen to be with the father because in 28:9 "Jesus met them" as they were running to tell the disciples that Christ is risen. Since it isn't possible that Jesus met them on the road after he had already risen to heaven, obviously he hadn't risen to heaven yet. There's nothing in Matthew about rising to be with the Father.Now let's look at Mark. Rather than me quoting pieces of passages, just read Mark 16 - it's the last chapter. It describes his coming back to life as his being risen. The words "resurrected" or "resurrection" do not appear. And at the end Jesus is "taken up into Heaven", he doesn't rise to heaven.So let me stop with all the analysis and just state what seems obvious to me: If for you "He is risen" is a separate event from the resurrection, that is an invention of your own. Even the Anglican website seems to differ with you, saying on their home page, "We believe in The Risen Savior." And the Wikipedia article titled Resurrection of Jesus says:

quote:

---

The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian religious belief that, after being put to death, Jesus rose again from the dead. It is the central tenet of Christian theology and part of the Nicene Creed: "On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures".

---

I of course have only scratched the surface of this issue, and maybe I misunderstood you, but what I've learned so far tells me that there may be more differences between your beliefs and standard Anglicanism than you think.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify a bungled sentence.

Just a quick note to respond to one issue. It is my fault as I thought that when you used the term risen, you actually meant the ascension which of course is recorded as happening 40 days or so after the resurrection.I now understand you to be using it as risen from the dead which does indeed mean, although in a less specific way, the same as resurrection.The only distinction that I would make is that the term risen could I think also be applied to Lazarus which was not the same thing as resurrection.

You're just muddying the water. Lazarus did resurrect but he didn't ascend. Enoch ascended without resurrecting because he didn't die.

Lazarus was resuscitated. His death was the same, other than for the time factor, as someone who dies on the operating table and is brought back to life and later dies. Jesus' was resurrected with a renewed body that is not subject to a later death.

That's another of the dogma examples that just seems silly, juvenile. Sorry but it really doesn't seem to have any meaning or value.

It's the only reason for the Christian faith. If not for the resurrection there is no basis for Christianity. If not for the resurrection Jesus wouldn't even be a foot note in human history and he would simply have been another failed messiah like others before and after Him.

If that is true then there is no value in Christianity and it should just be a footno0te if even that. Jesus is a failed Messiah which is why the Christian Marketers changed the definition of what the Messiah would be.If that is the sole reason for Christianity then it is of no value whatsoever.I happen to think Christianity is far more then just that.

Percy said "What is the value of a made up interpretation".There is no such thing as a made up interpretation unless a person makes no reference to any verse or any ideal that can be reasonably be said to be found in the Bible as a whole.

Percy asks why his interpretation would be better than mine. It would only be better depending on what assumptions people bring to the Bible. If you claim that the Bible reflects reality as much as green eggs and ham by dr Seuss, then there is no such thing as an interpretation on your part as you believe there is nothing in the Bible that has anything at all to say to humanity.A relevant interpretation would take at least a few references to the afterlife concept in the Bible or references to hell or the lake of fire or of God's judgement in general. If you refuse to even contemplate any of these references in the Bible or to use them to make a better argument, all you have said is that the Bible is complete rubbish and not worth talking about. If that is your argument, you have revealed nothing new to me as I already pretty much know that's were you stand.You charge me with making up something out of whole cloth. This simply is not true. I believe the Bible to be inspired by God and there is nothing in it that he did not intend to be there. From that belief, I build an argument to establish the claim I made that you say is made up.You can claim that the beliefs outlined in the above paragraph cannot be established but to them say that makes my conclusion made up is really saying that you refuse to even use the Bible as a point of reference in a religious discussion.You simply could have said that although you believe the Bible to be complete rubbish, I believe you are in error making that conclusion based on what the Bible says. I would then respond by giving you the reference points in the Bible that make my case and it would then be your turn to either say I misunderstand said references or that they fail to support my case.