The Tension of Faith

Personally, I try not to use scripture without understanding to some degree the context for which it was intended.I also seek information from others on subjects and then make my initial conclusion. Some may call this as weak, but I dont simply divide the world into believers and unbelievers as I perhaps used to do to a greater degree.Lets use a bit of scripture here to make my point more understandable. Note Matthew 23, which you referred to. Jesus was addressing teachers and Pharisees. Why was he angry with them? What was it that they were doing that caused this anger?As for the critics of the Jesus Seminar I had to look up information in context and see what all of the fuss was about from both sides. Apparently, according to this first article,

quote:

---

This criticism is based on the knowledge that the Jesus Seminar eliminates any evidence they cannot explain using modern scientific principles.

​

The critics of the Jesus Seminar point to the fact that since God works outside the natural realm, you cannot eliminate the documented evidence of what Jesus did ( the miracles), and what Jesus said (His teachings) if you are going to make an accurate assessment of finding the truth of who Jesus said He is (the Son of God).

---

Sounds a bit like our own EvC discussion on The science of Miracles. The seminar was founded by the Westar Institute and had a twofold mission, according to Wikipedia.

quote:

---

The Westar Institute, founded by Robert W. Funk in 1985, is a member-supported nonprofit educational institute with a twofold mission:

​

To foster collaborative, cumulative research in religious studies
To communicate the results of the scholarship of religion to a broad, non-specialist public(...)Because of its emphasis on historical foundations over against dogmatic faith, Westar Institute has been criticized by evangelical and fundamentalist-leaning organizations. This criticism has appeared "almost from the moment that they published their first paper on the life and death of Jesus Christ.

---

So we again get back to our core debate regarding imparted revelation(regarding Gods nature, floods, and any other miracle...as well as the origins of Calvinism and the question regarding inerrancy of scripture) vs facts and evidence.

Just to be clear, are you saying my doctrine is traditional Christian doctrine or not? Farther down you refer to my "mistaken version of Christianity" but it's hard to tell if you regard it as mistaken just because you prefer some other interpretational system, such as the Jesus Seminar or you actually think it's not the traditional doctrine.

Roman Catholicism is the traditional Christian Doctrine. No other Chapter of Club Christian can claim preeminence.

I would argue that the Eastern Orthodox have as valid a claim as Rome. Christianity originated in five cities officially and Rome broke away from the other four. At least according to what I have read.

To clarify: I originally quoted Matthew 23:33-35 to show that Jesus doesn't fit the portrait of blanket lovingness so erroneously imputed to Him here. He saves sinners by paying for their sins, which is certainly loving the sinner but far from ignoring or condoning sin, and eventually He will come in judgment against those who don't repent. That, I'm claiming, is traditional Bible-inerrancy Christianity. Are you saying it's not traditional, that I made it up, that I personally "latch onto" such passages for some purposes of my own, or it IS the traditional belief system as I said, but you think it's wrong, or what?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't prefer any Christian "interpretational system", but of course the Jesus Seminar comes closer to my views because they don't take the Bible literally. But they take it much more literally than I do. For instance, they think Jesus was a real person.The reason I think your Christian views mistaken is because they cause you to view so much of the human race in dark and even sinister terms when the primary message of Christianity is to love our fellow man. That message emerges unambiguously when you examine the words of Jesus that the Jesus Seminar has judged genuine, and all your justifications for vipers and vengeance just melt away. Your studies have built you a house of hate, and that's not the message of Christianity--Percy

Thank you for clarifying, though you did manage not to say whether you regard my views as traditional or not.I'll just say it again: there is no hate for anybody in anything I've said. We're ALL fallen, we're ALL sinners, and Jesus came to save, not condemn. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jesus as originally conceived never said Matthew 23:33-35. Obviously in the early years of Christianity as various evangelists attempted to influence the course of Christian belief, Jesus was the voice of authority, and what better way to persuade than to put their own message in Jesus' mouth. It is for some reason very appealing to you that people who don't repent will be punished. No, I'm not saying it isn't traditional evangelicalism, but your emphasis on these hate portions of evangelicalism is not how most evangelicals would characterize their religion. I think if you had the same conversation with evangelicals that you're having with us here that they'd respond, "Your views are out of balance. You stress too much the venom and not enough the love and compassion."For an example of how you differ from most other evangelicals I offer your response to when I said we should "follow our hearts." Instead of taking the clear meaning you found a hateful Biblical passage that called the heart "deceitful above all things." I think your views are unbalanced toward the hateful. I think the Biblical passages that you stress so often are a reflection of who you are. If by "traditional belief system" you mean traditional plain old Christianity that you can find in any Methodist or Congregational church, then from what I've experienced they seem to be spreading Jesus' message of love.If by "traditional belief system" you mean the evangelical belief system, then I think it's an exclusive, xenophobic religion and that to the extent they promote those attitudes instead of love and inclusivity that they are wrong.--Percy

Has absolutely nothing whatever to do with some personal appeal to me. Everything I'm saying here is a rsponse to the context of the discussion. The discussion was originally about a human law that violates God's law, and then became a discussion of your accusations of me, it is not a general presentation of evangelicalism. There is only one reason for my emphasis on what you call the "hate" passages, and that is to correct the erroneous view of Jesus as some kind of wimpy mushminded tolerator of sin and evil. But none of this is about my CHARACTERIZING MY RELIGION. I'm dealing with a specific context and that is all, the law legalizing gay marriage. That's it. Characterizing the religion in general would be a statement of how we're all sinners and Jesus came to pay for our sins. There'd be no need to mention the law about gay marriage.
, Obviously, because you miss the whole point that I'm talking within the particular limited context of a law legalizing a violation of God's law. It has nothing to do with what I personally prefer to stress in some kind of general sense, it's only to answer the ridiculously erroneous idea that Jesus would condone such a law or condone anything that justifies sin. He DIED FOR SIN, He's not going to condone it. Sin is THE destructive force in the universe. When the human race disobeyed God things started falling apart from that moment on. We started falling apart, we became subject to disease and death, we lost our ability to communicate with God, all our faculties lost their original strength and sharpness, and the entire physical world started deteriorating. This is all due to SIN. There's no way Jesus is going to condone it. HE DIED BECAUSE OF IT SO WE WON"T HAVE TO BE ETERNALLY PUNISHED FOR IT. THAT IS LOVE OF THE HUMAN RACE. Justifying sin would be hating us. That would be true of any denomination and it would be better to choose a different one, say Baptist, because Methodism has become liberal. What you say would describe a Baptist church too. But they aren't usually addressing a topic like gay marriage. Happen to show up on a day when that comes up in the sermon and you'll get a different idea.What I said about the human heart being deceitful is quoted all the time by evangelicals as a reminder to us that we can't trust ourselves, only God.; "Follow your heart" is the exact opposite of a Christian message.There couldn't be anything MORE inclusive than Christianity, that is what is so weird about your point of view.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You don’t report looking at any side but the critics. Wikipedia is probably more even-handed and explains the criteria used for judging sayings attributed to Jesus, which would be those relevant to the point Percy was making.

quote:

---

I'll just say it again: there is no hate for anybody in anything I've said. We're ALL fallen, we're ALL sinners, and Jesus came to save, not condemn.

---

And yet if your sins -or even your intellectual failings - are mentioned you get angry and even look forward to seeing people sent to Hell.

Read more; in particular the Canon 28 from the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It was only after the seat of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople that the Eastern Church was raised to the level of Rome.

See the last couple paragraphs of Message 1493. The hateful things you've said have been quoted over and over again. This is just something you accept on faith. The beliefs of all religions are accepted on faith, except for religions like "The sun will rise tomorrow." I accept nothing on faith (the religious type of faith) except that there's a God who gives the universe purpose.--Percy

And yet you keep bringing it up. You even express the hope that we'll get what's coming to us on judgment day. The only one who doesn't recognize what her words say about her is you. You've got a blind spot the size of a Buick. Right, and for you the context is how people who don't repent from the sins you define deserve punishment, preferably eternal damnation. God's law is impermanent because it is the invention of man. You can call it God's law if you like, but all religious dictums are just laws invented by people. I just call attention to what you say. I wouldn't be so sure about that. A lot of evangelical's support Trump and voted for Roy Moore. In other words, apparently many evangelicals are a lot like you. You mean like Jesus "tolerating" Mary Magdalene? Being crucified between two thieves? Saying that he who is without sin should cast the first stone? Associating with sinners and tax collectors? It most certainly is. All your statements in the name of your evangelical beliefs give horrible impressions of evangelicalism. So if your gay friend with bad eyesight needed help picking out her wedding cake, would you help? This is a religious belief that you accept on faith. I accept nothing on faith except that there is a God who gives the universe purpose. You've said many hateful things on many topics (gay marriage, love, the heart, hopes for our eternal damnation, etc.) in this thread and many other threads. The choice to emphasize hateful views and actions were your own. You said yourself that the choice of evangelicalism was one you made personally after much study. You adopted the views you hold by conscious choice. Is there really that much of a difference between condoning sin and forgiving it? This is a religious belief that you accept on faith. I accept nothing on faith except that there is a God who gives the universe purpose. Oh, horrors, they've become liberal! Or to translate from Faith-speak, they don't believe the same things you believe. Baptists span a wide range of beliefs but are largely evangelical like you, so I don't know why you'd say that. Baptists are not all of one view on gay marriage, so it makes no sense that you're bringing them up. Some Baptist denominations are more liberal than others, and therefore more accepting of gay marriage. As you're well aware, that is not the definition of "heart" I was using. From context I clearly meant capacity for sympathy, feeling, affection. You have no heart. Really? So you'd welcome a gay couple into your congregation?--Percy

Percy writes:

quote:

---

You mean like Jesus "tolerating" Mary Magdalene?

---

Um, what is it about Mary Magdalene that you think needs "tolerating"?You *do* know that she wasn't a prostitute, yes? Oh, she had demons cast out of her (by Jesus), but that's not a reason to disassociate from her afterward.Don't confuse the ravings of Gregory I for what the Bible actually says about Mary Magdalene. The fact that he couldn't read Luke and decided to unfurl his misogyny by claiming that an unnamed woman had to be Mary Magdalene because of some bizarre numerology and a fever dream of women needing redemption doesn't mean he was right.The Orthodox don't see MM as a prostitute and even consider her to be a virgin. In fact, there is an Orthodox tradition that the reason she had the seven demons is because she was so virtuous that the devil thought she was going to bear Christ and thus possessed her. Heck, even the Catholics figured it out and said she wasn't the sinner in Luke back in 1969. Only the Protestants seem to follow Pope Gregory I's claim...a bit odd, you would think, Protestants clinging to ancient Catholic teachings....