Subject:
|
Re: This God thing...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:32:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
372 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
>
> > I can only give you my opinions as a Christian who doesn't believe in the
> > inerrancy of scripture. Also, your questions refer to ancient customs >practiced by an ancient people that have little pertinence to the modern
> > practice of Christianity (some will argue with that, but I stand by the
> > statement and believe that it is completely defensible from within the faith.)
>
> But some (indeed, many) would also argue that the "ancient customs" you
> cite aren't appreciably any more ancient to modern times than the ancient
> customs practiced by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That is, it's all
> pretty darned ancient, so the question becomes "how do we pick and choose
> what is and what is not relevant to the modern practice of Christianity?"
From a practicing Christian perspective, there isn't any need to adhere to
Mosaic Law because our New Testament letters clearly state that Jesus did away
with the Old Covenant of sacrifices and that they needn't be practiced any
longer. Christianity has this question completely and soundly resolved for
those who chose to practice it.
Again, I think that the most pertinent question is how Christianity is to view
the ugliness of some Old Testament theology in terms of that theology's claim
upon current practice, tradition and development. Herein, I think, lies the
importance of the inerrancy question. A Christian needn't believe that
everything recorded in Scripture is correct. There is no comprehensive litmus
test for what can be regarded as reliable and what cannot; Confidence in any
particulars of scriptural authority is a developing process that has changed and
will changed. It is really a function of the Church's (aka the body of
believers universal) experience over time and place. The practice of
Christianity is more akin to a river that is always moving than to a quiet pond;
the face of the river is always changing and every point along the river is
different than the one before. In other words, the river as a comprehensive
body is generally cohesive and moving in the same direction toward some common
destination, but it is full of eddies and currents and foam from crashes against
obstacles in some part of the body's course. Christianity has changed and will
change and I can offer you no statement of faith that will remain changeless in
all its nuances and offer a comprehensive explanation of all that Christianity
is and all of the hard questions that it tries to answer. From personal
subjective experience (which cannot be reproduced in either myself again or in
you as in me) as a Christian I can offer you that the practice of the faith is
not a vow of assertion to a rigid standard of doctrine but a life-long process
of sought relationship with who we believe to be God.
james
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This God thing...
|
| (...) But does that resolution also indicate that certain aspects of Christianity must remain in force ("the new and everlasting covenant"), or might there be a point at which the body of believers can legitmately say "this or that is no longer (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: This God thing...
|
| (...) But some (indeed, many) would also argue that the "ancient customs" you cite aren't appreciably any more ancient to modern times than the ancient customs practiced by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That is, it's all pretty darned ancient, so (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
