Update on Dealing with Progressive Christianity

Smellin Coffee said:
Getting cancer kinda put me in a position to reevaluate life both now and in the hereafter. Even after being medically cleared, I want more than ever to understand and follow what Jesus taught instead of simply applying His quotes to an already-existing belief system.

:)

I didn't even know you had cancer.  Either I missed it or (more probably) my tired old brain forgot. 

I agree, following Jesus, who he is, what he taught, what he did and continues to do, and glorifying him in us is what it's all about. 

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
I agree, following Jesus, who he is, what he taught, what he did and continues to do, and glorifying him in us is what it's all about.

The more I go on this journey, the more I find myself dropping pieces of my personal tribalism. I am full of bias and selfishness and pride and I have to confess my sinful heart to God on a regular basis. I don't expect other followers of Jesus to feel the same as I because the relationships are personal, both mine and theirs. The call to abandonment and to follow means bringing previous character traits, personality differences, belief systems, biases and relativism. As one follows, I believe those begin to reshape but not everybody reshapes into the same cookie-cutter image nor do they form an identical relationship with God. Granted, there should be some general similarity in some characteristics (humility, love and a spirit of forgiveness) but in the shape of transformation, people grow and exist in different stages, stages I may or may not agree with.

Anyway, I appreciate your kind words.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
Smellin, I agree with you on a lot of points, but lately you've really been going off the deep end.  Is there some crisis in your life right now?

No, but I really appreciate you asking.

Getting cancer kinda put me in a position to reevaluate life both now and in the hereafter. Even after being medically cleared, I want more than ever to understand and follow what Jesus taught instead of simply applying His quotes to an already-existing belief system.

:)

I'm thankful you survived cancer and pray you stay cancer free in the future.
But surviving cancer does not make one a theologian.  :)

And, I repeat what I've told you before....you have greater insight than those poor schmucks from the apostles...the early church fathers up to today's scholars and theologians....not o mention spirit filled believers thru the centuries.
YOU and you alone know the truth behind the Apostle Paul's scam!

Forgive me if I don't change my opinion of your enlightened belief system, or as I call it A Crock!  ;D
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Smellin Coffee said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
Smellin, I agree with you on a lot of points, but lately you've really been going off the deep end.  Is there some crisis in your life right now?

No, but I really appreciate you asking.

Getting cancer kinda put me in a position to reevaluate life both now and in the hereafter. Even after being medically cleared, I want more than ever to understand and follow what Jesus taught instead of simply applying His quotes to an already-existing belief system.

:)

I'm thankful you survived cancer and pray you stay cancer free in the future.
But surviving cancer does not make one a theologian.  :)

And, I repeat what I've told you before....you have greater insight than those poor schmucks from the apostles...the early church fathers up to today's scholars and theologians....not o mention spirit filled believers thru the centuries.
YOU and you alone know the truth behind the Apostle Paul's scam!

Forgive me if I don't change my opinion of your enlightened belief system, or as I call it A Crock!  ;D

I am not alone in my belief though I personally know no other. Much smarter men than I came to the same conclusion centuries before I did. Whether or not you agree them to be credible sources is not the issue: the issue is that my ideal did not come out of left field and there is historical precedence.  :)

In 180 AD, Irenaeus labels the Ebionites as heretics for their opposition to Paul:

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103126.htm

Tertullian:

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he [i.e., Paul] was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design [i.e., on the Road to Damascus]. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus [i.e., Marcion], supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him [i.e., Paul]: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ.... [L]et the apostle, belong to your other god:....

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_12book5_eng.htm

About Justin Martyr:

"His [Justin Martyr] silence about Paul, when he had every reason to cite him in his anti-Judaistic reasonings, is a silence that speaks--a void that no iteration of unattested statements, no nebulous declamation, can ever fill."

https://books.google.com/books?id=R4gXAAAAYAAJ&dq=Antiqua+Mater:+A+Study+of+Christian+Origins&pg=PA35&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Antiqua%20Mater%3A%20A%20Study%20of%20Christian%20Origins&f=false

Said about Eusebius:

Another characteristic trait preserved in Eusebius, E.H. 6:38, where he quotes from a homily of Origen, on Psalm lxxxii, the doctrine of an Elcesaite, that he rejects the apostle Paul.

https://books.google.com/books?id=D3RAAAAAIAAJ&dq=theodotus+byzantium&pg=PA270&hl=en#v=onepage&q=theodotus%20byzantium&f=false

Jerome said Paul lied about Peter:

"If it be possible for men to say and believe that, after introducing his narrative with these words, ‘The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not’, the apostle (Paul) lied when he said of Peter and Barnabas, ‘I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel’,... [then] if they did walk uprightly, Paul wrote what was false; and if he wrote what was false here, when did he say what was true?"

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.XL.html

Methodius:

‘You should not be upset by the sudden shifts in Paul’s arguments, which give the impression that he is confusing the issue or dragging in irrelevant material or merely wool-gathering.... In all his transitions he never introduces anything that would be irrelevant to his teaching; but gathering up all his ideas into a wonderfully harmonious pattern, he makes all bear on the single point which he has in view.’

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/paul_chadwick.pdf

Tolstoy:

The separation between the doctrine of life and the explanation of life began with the preaching of Paul who knew not the ethical teachings set forth in the Gospel of Matthew, and who preached a metaphisico-cabalistic theory entirely foreign to Christ; and this separation was perfected in the time of Constantine, when it was found possible to clothe the whole pagan organization of life in a Christian dress, and without changing it to call it Christianity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=EnVFAAAAMAAJ&dq=Leo+Tolstoy+My+Religion&pg=PA219&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Leo%20Tolstoy%20My%20Religion&f=false

Tolstoy again:

But since Christ's time, and down to ours, we find a deviation of doctrine from the foundations laid by Christ.
This deviation begins at the time of the apostles, especially with that lover of teaching, Paul: and the wider Christianity extends, the more it deviates and appropriates the methods of that very external worship and dogmatism the denial of which was so positively expressed by Christ.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/tolstoy/churchandstate.html

Kierkegaard:

Protestantism is altogether untenable. It is a revolution brought on by proclaiming 'the Apostle Paul' at the expense of the Master (Christ). If there is to be any question of retaining Protestantism...we confess that this teaching is a mitigation of Christianity which we humans have allowed ourselves, appealing to God to put up with it. And instead Protestantism is blazoned forth as an advance in Christianity! No, it is perhaps the most profound concession to the numerical...this numerality that wants to be Christian but wants rid of ideality or to have it downgraded, and insists upon being such and such a number."

https://books.google.com/books?id=nuSmfkxkAWMC&lpg=PA629&ots=noBGnu5WM1&dq=kierkegaard++apostle'+(Paul)+at+the+expense+of+the+Master&pg=PA629&hl=en#v=onepage&q=kierkegaard%20%20apostle'%20(Paul)%20at%20the%20expense%20of%20the%20Master&f=false

HG Wells:

But it is equally a fact in history that St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for—as you may prefer to think— the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer's ordinary habits and occupations, and that this Pauline teaching did involve very definite beliefs about the history of the world and man.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rTAMAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA952&ots=mckhvLLhr7&dq=Paul+and+his+successors+added+to+imposed+upon+or+substituted+another+doctrine+for+the+plain+teachings+of+Jesus&pg=PA952&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Paul%20and%20his%20successors%20added%20to%20imposed%20upon%20or%20substituted%20another%20doctrine%20for%20the%20plain%20teachings%20of%20Jesus&f=false





 
Smellin Coffee said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
Smellin Coffee said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
Smellin, I agree with you on a lot of points, but lately you've really been going off the deep end.  Is there some crisis in your life right now?

No, but I really appreciate you asking.

Getting cancer kinda put me in a position to reevaluate life both now and in the hereafter. Even after being medically cleared, I want more than ever to understand and follow what Jesus taught instead of simply applying His quotes to an already-existing belief system.

:)

I'm thankful you survived cancer and pray you stay cancer free in the future.
But surviving cancer does not make one a theologian.  :)

And, I repeat what I've told you before....you have greater insight than those poor schmucks from the apostles...the early church fathers up to today's scholars and theologians....not o mention spirit filled believers thru the centuries.
YOU and you alone know the truth behind the Apostle Paul's scam!

Forgive me if I don't change my opinion of your enlightened belief system, or as I call it A Crock!  ;D

I am not alone in my belief though I personally know no other. Much smarter men than I came to the same conclusion centuries before I did. Whether or not you agree them to be credible sources is not the issue: the issue is that my ideal did not come out of left field and there is historical precedence.  :)

In 180 AD, Irenaeus labels the Ebionites as heretics for their opposition to Paul:

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103126.htm

Tertullian:

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he [i.e., Paul] was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design [i.e., on the Road to Damascus]. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus [i.e., Marcion], supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him [i.e., Paul]: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ.... [L]et the apostle, belong to your other god:....

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_12book5_eng.htm

About Justin Martyr:

"His [Justin Martyr] silence about Paul, when he had every reason to cite him in his anti-Judaistic reasonings, is a silence that speaks--a void that no iteration of unattested statements, no nebulous declamation, can ever fill."

https://books.google.com/books?id=R4gXAAAAYAAJ&dq=Antiqua+Mater:+A+Study+of+Christian+Origins&pg=PA35&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Antiqua%20Mater%3A%20A%20Study%20of%20Christian%20Origins&f=false

Said about Eusebius:

Another characteristic trait preserved in Eusebius, E.H. 6:38, where he quotes from a homily of Origen, on Psalm lxxxii, the doctrine of an Elcesaite, that he rejects the apostle Paul.

https://books.google.com/books?id=D3RAAAAAIAAJ&dq=theodotus+byzantium&pg=PA270&hl=en#v=onepage&q=theodotus%20byzantium&f=false

Jerome said Paul lied about Peter:

"If it be possible for men to say and believe that, after introducing his narrative with these words, ‘The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not’, the apostle (Paul) lied when he said of Peter and Barnabas, ‘I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel’,... [then] if they did walk uprightly, Paul wrote what was false; and if he wrote what was false here, when did he say what was true?"

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.XL.html

Methodius:

‘You should not be upset by the sudden shifts in Paul’s arguments, which give the impression that he is confusing the issue or dragging in irrelevant material or merely wool-gathering.... In all his transitions he never introduces anything that would be irrelevant to his teaching; but gathering up all his ideas into a wonderfully harmonious pattern, he makes all bear on the single point which he has in view.’

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/paul_chadwick.pdf

Tolstoy:

The separation between the doctrine of life and the explanation of life began with the preaching of Paul who knew not the ethical teachings set forth in the Gospel of Matthew, and who preached a metaphisico-cabalistic theory entirely foreign to Christ; and this separation was perfected in the time of Constantine, when it was found possible to clothe the whole pagan organization of life in a Christian dress, and without changing it to call it Christianity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=EnVFAAAAMAAJ&dq=Leo+Tolstoy+My+Religion&pg=PA219&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Leo%20Tolstoy%20My%20Religion&f=false

Tolstoy again:

But since Christ's time, and down to ours, we find a deviation of doctrine from the foundations laid by Christ.
This deviation begins at the time of the apostles, especially with that lover of teaching, Paul: and the wider Christianity extends, the more it deviates and appropriates the methods of that very external worship and dogmatism the denial of which was so positively expressed by Christ.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/tolstoy/churchandstate.html

Kierkegaard:

Protestantism is altogether untenable. It is a revolution brought on by proclaiming 'the Apostle Paul' at the expense of the Master (Christ). If there is to be any question of retaining Protestantism...we confess that this teaching is a mitigation of Christianity which we humans have allowed ourselves, appealing to God to put up with it. And instead Protestantism is blazoned forth as an advance in Christianity! No, it is perhaps the most profound concession to the numerical...this numerality that wants to be Christian but wants rid of ideality or to have it downgraded, and insists upon being such and such a number."

https://books.google.com/books?id=nuSmfkxkAWMC&lpg=PA629&ots=noBGnu5WM1&dq=kierkegaard++apostle'+(Paul)+at+the+expense+of+the+Master&pg=PA629&hl=en#v=onepage&q=kierkegaard%20%20apostle'%20(Paul)%20at%20the%20expense%20of%20the%20Master&f=false

HG Wells:

But it is equally a fact in history that St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for—as you may prefer to think— the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer's ordinary habits and occupations, and that this Pauline teaching did involve very definite beliefs about the history of the world and man.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rTAMAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA952&ots=mckhvLLhr7&dq=Paul+and+his+successors+added+to+imposed+upon+or+substituted+another+doctrine+for+the+plain+teachings+of+Jesus&pg=PA952&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Paul%20and%20his%20successors%20added%20to%20imposed%20upon%20or%20substituted%20another%20doctrine%20for%20the%20plain%20teachings%20of%20Jesus&f=false

You left out quotes from Stalin, Tom Paine, Robert Ingersoll and Harry Emerson Fosdick.  :o
 
May I interrupt this discussion to ask for prayers...we have been informed that the LBGTQ of greater Phoenix are planning a sit in in some or all of our churches . We don't check people at the door & all are welcome so if they come and just observe great, but this group has previously gone into churches and move to the front during the message and sat there staring at the people.  We want to show all the love of Christ...but we will not have intentional disruption. They may just be blowing smoke, we will see. I am out this Sunday and my Associate is speaking...if they do come, I hope it is when I am there.  Thanks all.

T-Bone
 
Smellin Coffee said:
It seems to me that both sides are at fault in creating divisiveness amongst those who claim to follow Christ. In this case, the Progressives have taken the position of "being the martyr" and appears to be making public spectacle of it. The Conservatives have been publicly advertising their disagreements with Progressive theology in what seems (at least to the Progressives) like an attack. I don't know any of the names that were mentioned in the article but it seems like neither side appears to be willing to sit down with the other, discuss differences and allow the other to follow Christ in the manner each side sees fit within their personal hermeneutic.

In my view, both sides are to blame as it takes two to fight. Neither side seems to be extending grace.

Been there, done that.  Attending a very liberal seminary whose professors whinged that "we're not as progressive as Chicago! Wah!", conservative strawmen were routinely set up and knocked down by the genius of progressive theology.
(Which is really annoying if you're not a progressive, let me tell you.)

The key was to go along to get along, as pictured by this emoji.  :-X

As such, I was assigned to a UCC church as an intern.  Not just any UCC church either, but the one that just happened to be in my hometown!  Part of the internship was "theological reflection".  In yet another ironic move, the pastor of this church had been assigned the year prior while interning at a social service agency as my "reflector", so he was full aware of my views.  I appreciated that we had the kind of irenic relationship where we could have that sort of dialogue and discuss disagreements.  I came to understand (one of my huge mental blocks prior to seminary) how to not read the Bible "literally". 

That sort of approach is really interesting if you're in an ivory tower somewhere.  However, in a congregation or a chaplaincy setting, there's not always time or energy to tease out all those little nuances.  The people I ministered to at the truck stop wanted answers, straight answers, not "let's explain this to death" interpretations.
 
T-Bone said:
May I interrupt this discussion to ask for prayers...we have been informed that the LBGTQ of greater Phoenix are planning a sit in in some or all of our churches . We don't check people at the door & all are welcome so if they come and just observe great, but this group has previously gone into churches and move to the front during the message and sat there staring at the people.  We want to show all the love of Christ...but we will not have intentional disruption. They may just be blowing smoke, we will see. I am out this Sunday and my Associate is speaking...if they do come, I hope it is when I am there.  Thanks all.

T-Bone

Send 'em over to Spamderson...
 
Agent P said:
Smellin Coffee said:
It seems to me that both sides are at fault in creating divisiveness amongst those who claim to follow Christ. In this case, the Progressives have taken the position of "being the martyr" and appears to be making public spectacle of it. The Conservatives have been publicly advertising their disagreements with Progressive theology in what seems (at least to the Progressives) like an attack. I don't know any of the names that were mentioned in the article but it seems like neither side appears to be willing to sit down with the other, discuss differences and allow the other to follow Christ in the manner each side sees fit within their personal hermeneutic.

In my view, both sides are to blame as it takes two to fight. Neither side seems to be extending grace.

Been there, done that.  Attending a very liberal seminary whose professors whinged that "we're not as progressive as Chicago! Wah!", conservative strawmen were routinely set up and knocked down by the genius of progressive theology.
(Which is really annoying if you're not a progressive, let me tell you.)

The key was to go along to get along, as pictured by this emoji.  :-X

As such, I was assigned to a UCC church as an intern.  Not just any UCC church either, but the one that just happened to be in my hometown!  Part of the internship was "theological reflection".  In yet another ironic move, the pastor of this church had been assigned the year prior while interning at a social service agency as my "reflector", so he was full aware of my views.  I appreciated that we had the kind of irenic relationship where we could have that sort of dialogue and discuss disagreements.  I came to understand (one of my huge mental blocks prior to seminary) how to not read the Bible "literally". 

That sort of approach is really interesting if you're in an ivory tower somewhere.  However, in a congregation or a chaplaincy setting, there's not always time or energy to tease out all those little nuances.  The people I ministered to at the truck stop wanted answers, straight answers, not "let's explain this to death" interpretations.

A big problem with the term "Progressive" is that like the term "Fundamentalist", it is too broad in scope and links the extremists with those who are more moderate. When I look at the teachings of Jesus, He didn't seem to emphasize theology to the common man but rather attitudes of the heart and actions toward others. Granted, with the religious right, He took them to task, even contradicting the OT Law where necessary. In essence, He was not opposed to arguing theology but it is interesting to note that in the realm of His sharing of the "gospel", theological ideals were not expected to be agreed to but rather actions relative to the heart were to be taken.

The Good Samaritan  (yes, it was a parable) did not have the correct theology yet it was he and not those that DID have the "correct theology" that would "inherit eternal life". The woman at the well, she was way out in left field and could not worship correctly in her culture, yet she was also forgiven.

Like the Fundamentalists who do emphasize their way is the only right way, there are Progressives that are guilty of the same thing.

This article articulates pretty well the problems with Progressives as seen from the eyes of an admitted Progressive.

http://matthewpaulturner.com/2014/09/08/20-problems-progressive-christianity/
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
You left out quotes from Stalin, Tom Paine, Robert Ingersoll and Harry Emerson Fosdick.  :o

More proof that even though I might not be headed in the right direction, I'm confident I am leaving another wrong one. :)
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
You left out quotes from Stalin, Tom Paine, Robert Ingersoll and Harry Emerson Fosdick.  :o

More proof that even though I might not be headed in the right direction, I'm confident I am leaving another wrong one. :)

Again, you are the arbiter of truth.
Unlike the poor schmucks who have fallen prey to the great Pauline Conspiracy.
Schmucks who believe that the bodily resurrection is necessary for our salvation!

Almost thou persuadest me to be heretical.  ;)
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
You left out quotes from Stalin, Tom Paine, Robert Ingersoll and Harry Emerson Fosdick.  :o

More proof that even though I might not be headed in the right direction, I'm confident I am leaving another wrong one. :)

Again, you are the arbiter of truth.
Unlike the poor schmucks who have fallen prey to the great Pauline Conspiracy.
Schmucks who believe that the bodily resurrection is necessary for our salvation!

Almost thou persuadest me to be heretical.  ;)

And there you go again. Where have I even insinuated that anyone who doesn't agree with me is a "poor schmuck"? Where have I referred to anyone who disagrees with me as inferior in any way? If you are going to attack, I'm cool with that but at least be truthful in your portrayal of me.

We are ALL arbiters of our own "truth" because we ALL approach our belief system with relative bias. Your bias might come from mainstream Evangelical thinking but that is YOUR decision. I chose to abandon that thinking.  If that is bothersome to you, too bad. If you think that I think lesser of people simply because they don't see things from my perspective, you are wrong. There are people who I highly respect despite our theological differences.

Let me quote Eagles coach Chip Kelly for you:

I don't think about what I think as much as you think about what I think.

:)
 
Whatever you (all) may think of Paul, I think it's clear that Paul and the apostles were flawed.  The following should demonstrate that clearly:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Whatever you (all) may think of Paul, I think it's clear that Paul and the apostles were flawed.  The following should demonstrate that clearly:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Which is why I believe I should run their writings/teachings through the grid of the recorded teachings of Jesus rather than run Jesus' teachings through their perspectives. :)
 
You should run their writings through their other writings?

Another way you want to pick and choose. As I see it, your belief system is all about the individual building their own god and has no place for a shared understanding by a larger community of faith. In short, it's nothing at all like what the Bible talks about the church looking like.
 
If we would all just use the same discernment filter then there would be no disagreement.

On anything.

Ever.

8)
 
rsc2a said:
You should run their writings through their other writings?

Another way you want to pick and choose. As I see it, your belief system is all about the individual building their own god and has no place for a shared understanding by a larger community of faith. In short, it's nothing at all like what the Bible talks about the church looking like.

"Pick and choose"?  We ALL do that.

The church is built upon Jesus Christ and that which He taught, not what others said about Him. Granted, we have to rely on historical record.

I believe, a community of faith should be diverse wherever possible whether that be in culture, thought, doctrine, politics, marital and economic status, etc. and Jesus should be the unifying thread. Would that operate smoothly? Probably not, because we are dealing with imperfect people with relative bias, but He and living His teaching should be the central commonality. I think THAT is what the church should look like.

Yes, I do "pick and choose", but I am willing to admit it.
 
I pick and choose.

I occasionally pick my nose but always choose not to eat it.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
You left out quotes from Stalin, Tom Paine, Robert Ingersoll and Harry Emerson Fosdick.  :o

More proof that even though I might not be headed in the right direction, I'm confident I am leaving another wrong one. :)

Again, you are the arbiter of truth.
Unlike the poor schmucks who have fallen prey to the great Pauline Conspiracy.
Schmucks who believe that the bodily resurrection is necessary for our salvation!

Almost thou persuadest me to be heretical.  ;)

And there you go again. Where have I even insinuated that anyone who doesn't agree with me is a "poor schmuck"? Where have I referred to anyone who disagrees with me as inferior in any way? If you are going to attack, I'm cool with that but at least be truthful in your portrayal of me.

We are ALL arbiters of our own "truth" because we ALL approach our belief system with relative bias. Your bias might come from mainstream Evangelical thinking but that is YOUR decision. I chose to abandon that thinking.  If that is bothersome to you, too bad. If you think that I think lesser of people simply because they  don't see things from my perspective, you are wrong. There are people who I highly respect despite our theological differences.

Let me quote Eagles coach Chip Kelly for you:

I don't think about what I think as much as you think about what I think.

:)

Note to self...don't use sarcasm or hyperbole in response to Smellin.
It's lost on the poor schmuck.  ;)
 
Back
Top