Subject:
|
Re: This God thing...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:04:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
455 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> 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.
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 relevant, and Christ would have wanted us to
discard it if it became irrelevant"? I'm not trying to be flippant, but
since my perspective is that of a person who can't ascribe absolute
authority to a book or series of traditions, I'm genuinely curious about how
believers distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant.
**snip of a nicely-worded and well-steeped in tradition analogy of a river**
> 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.
I can accept that answer both from a pragmatic and an aesthetic
standpoint, but it seems directly opposed to a system of belief based on
objective truth. Is there some conceivable point in the future in which it
might be "okay" for Christians to profane Christ, simply because society and
the nature of faith have changed? Obviously, that's an extreme and unlikely
example, but it speaks once again of the underlying question: how can
someone know which parts of faith can be discarded and which parts of that
faith are inviolable?
> 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.
That makes a good deal of sense, in that the person (eg: you) is
ever-changing, and so the nature of the relationship with God must change in
step with the person. In other words, perhaps the ultimate nature of faith
and its significance is unchanging, but the individual is not. Interesting.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: This God thing...
|
| (...) In the case of Mosaic Law, our letters record Christ himself declaring it irrelevant, so the authority has in fact settled it for those who accept that authority. Some things have in fact changed, and the majority of believers recognize it as (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: This God thing...
|
| (...) 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. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
