All good stuff here. I am with you on the points, except it feels like you took it to an extreme. I totally agree with the bits about seeing God and meeting with Him through the gathering of believers and caring for others in His name. However, I would disagree about not meeting with Him through study of Scripture
( ... )
Michael said the same thing to me last night on the phone. I am not in any way denigrating the study of the Bible or saying that serving is necessarily more important than study. However, I am saying that we should be specific about the teachings in the New Testament, and it is my contention that the role of Scripture has been exalted beyond it's proper bounds. Of course the Torah was important to Jesus, and he quoted it because he saw it as the word of God. Nonetheless, this was not seen as serving the same function as the presence of God in the temple. Likewise, we should approach the Scriptures as the word of God, and we have to read them to learn about Jesus, but at no point is it indicated that it is a place where the earthly and heavenly realm join
( ... )
How do you decide what is necessary in various circumstances? Is there a standard you have?
Also, if I'm interpreting your follow up commentary on your statement of must and must not, are you of the opinion that in every situation there are only two options? Or is that what you're saying is still uncertain?
Once again, just to clarify my remarks, I was not denying the need for personal refinement or devotion in the form of textual study or prayer. Rather, I was saying that this does not serve the same function as that of gathering with other followers of Jesus or of serving the marginalized and downtrodden. It is the replacement of communal gathering and service by individual spritual devotion that I take issue with. Also, the disproportionate amount of time and resources that are devoted to individual development bother me
( ... )
How do you decide what is necessary in various circumstances? Is there a standard you have? Yes, and that standard is about as short and simple as the stuff ISO pubilshes: my ethical system. Somewhat complex, yes, but that is what the structure of our world necessiates.
Also, if I'm interpreting your follow up commentary on your statement of must and must not, are you of the opinion that in every situation there are only two options? Or is that what you're saying is still uncertain? Essentially, there is one honourable path, and all other paths (likely an infinite number) are less/not honourable. Whether there are situations where there are several most honourable paths is a question that i cannot answer yet
( ... )
I agree with you to a certain extent, however I think the very existence of theological thought is due to the fact that logic is by nature limited to the range of our senses and intellect. I don't think humans will ever "demystify" all of existence, and as such, the frameworks set up to engage those mystical parts cannot be totally logicized. In the case of a supreme being, saying that this being must be totally subject to scientific verification is somewhat illogical if the premise is that this being created the things which science can measure and exists both in and outside of it.
“Do you see the shift? Moving from people to books, from active engagement with the surrounding physical world to the shutting off from the world to "commune" with printed text, from communal interaction to individual solitude; this shift seems to not only miss the thrust of the original teaching, but subvert it! That should cause every thinking evangelical Christian grave concern
( ... )
“So, I ask again, where do we see and experience God in Christianity? I would submit that we in America who call ourselves followers of Jesus have much to answer for. I also submit that many of us who may ask to see more of God or experience more of his presence need only look as far as the nearest homeless shelter or social services agencies. I submit that if we are waiting to one day "go" and "meet him face to face", then we are wasting our time in a terrible way. If we do not take seriously our role in fulfilling the prayer that God's "kingdom come [and his] will be done on earth as it is in heaven", then we should have a very hard time indeed figuring out what exactly it is that makes us followers of Jesus
( ... )
Comments 11
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
How do you decide what is necessary in various circumstances? Is there a standard you have?
Also, if I'm interpreting your follow up commentary on your statement of must and must not, are you of the opinion that in every situation there are only two options? Or is that what you're saying is still uncertain?
Once again, just to clarify my remarks, I was not denying the need for personal refinement or devotion in the form of textual study or prayer. Rather, I was saying that this does not serve the same function as that of gathering with other followers of Jesus or of serving the marginalized and downtrodden. It is the replacement of communal gathering and service by individual spritual devotion that I take issue with. Also, the disproportionate amount of time and resources that are devoted to individual development bother me ( ... )
Reply
Yes, and that standard is about as short and simple as the stuff ISO pubilshes: my ethical system. Somewhat complex, yes, but that is what the structure of our world necessiates.
Also, if I'm interpreting your follow up commentary on your statement of must and must not, are you of the opinion that in every situation there are only two options? Or is that what you're saying is still uncertain?
Essentially, there is one honourable path, and all other paths (likely an infinite number) are less/not honourable. Whether there are situations where there are several most honourable paths is a question that i cannot answer yet ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment