Peace and peacemaking

[mitchellmckain]

The point of me pointing this out was to refute the idea that the point of Jesus was salvation, which I don't think is true. The point of Jesus was (and is) the Kingdom.

I don't know why you think that salvation and the kingdom of heaven are two different things. The point is that for Jesus, the kingdom of heaven was not just about somewhere else or the future but also about the here and now. And Jesus talks of salvation in the same way. Both were about changing our life through a change in ourselves and not a change of external circumstances, and that is a change that effects us wherever we may be and for all time.

[jordanws]

The point of me pointing this out was to refute the idea that the point of Jesus was salvation, which I don't think is true. The point of Jesus was (and is) the Kingdom.

I don't know why you think that salvation and the kingdom of heaven are two different things. The point is that for Jesus, the kingdom of heaven was not just about somewhere else or the future but also about the here and now. And Jesus talks of salvation in the same way. Both were about changing our life through a change in ourselves and not a change of external circumstances, and that is a change that effects us wherever we may be and for all time.

I made the distinction because the word 'salvation' comes with a lot of baggage if one has come out of the Christian context. Many people define salvation purely with what happens when you die, and I think that this is the definition that KTR is working with (hence his definition of Christianity as a 'death cult'), and I was refuting that understanding of salvation.

[Keep The Reason]

The point of me pointing this out was to refute the idea that the point of Jesus was salvation, which I don't think is true. The point of Jesus was (and is) the Kingdom.

I don't know why you think that salvation and the kingdom of heaven are two different things. The point is that for Jesus, the kingdom of heaven was not just about somewhere else or the future but also about the here and now. And Jesus talks of salvation in the same way. Both were about changing our life through a change in ourselves and not a change of external circumstances, and that is a change that effects us wherever we may be and for all time.

I made the distinction because the word 'salvation' comes with a lot of baggage if one has come out of the Christian context. Many people define salvation purely with what happens when you die, and I think that this is the definition that KTR is working with (hence his definition of Christianity as a 'death cult'), and I was refuting that understanding of salvation.

Salvation from what?

Sin.

And what doth sin bringeth?

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23 (KJV)

When you say "Many people", that often means "The Blueprint Documents"

[jordanws]

Salvation from what?

Sin.

And what doth sin bringeth?

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23 (KJV)

When you say "Many people", that often means "The Blueprint Documents"

What I'm trying to do is draw a distinction between what the scripture actually says, and the doctrine that people have built upon their understanding of scripture. See, the problem is that the question is not salvation from what? but salvation into what? I'm not saying that salvation from death isn't part of it, but that it is a small part compared to the wider scope of Christ's teaching. We've given it a disproportionally large role in our modern theology.

If you ask a dozen people to define sin, it is very possible that each and every one of them will define it slightly differently. How can salvation be simply defined if we can't define sin effectively?

[tirtlegrrl]

jordanws wrote: I'm not saying that salvation from death isn't part of it, but that it is a small part compared to the wider scope of Christ's teaching. We've given it a disproportionally large role in our modern theology.

Might I suggest that's because the idea of going to hell for unbelief is a lot scarier and more salient than questions of sanctification and behavior toward one's neighbor? [edit: corrected for improper use of an apostrophe]

[Keep The Reason]

What I'm trying to do is draw a distinction between what the scripture actually says, and the doctrine that people have built upon their understanding of scripture. See, the problem is that the question is not salvation from what? but salvation into what? I'm not saying that salvation from death isn't part of it, but that it is a small part compared to the wider scope of Christ's teaching. We've given it a disproportionally large role in our modern theology.

If you ask a dozen people to define sin, it is very possible that each and every one of them will define it slightly differently. How can salvation be simply defined if we can't define sin effectively?

You can try to redefine Christianity all you want, but two things will happen:

Further division and it no longer being Chistianity.

[tirtlegrrl]

And who has the final say in what is "Christianity" and what isn't? The most conservative wing? The liberals? The atheists? Social scientists? Theologians? God? Who gets to define what the word means in the context of a discussion like this one?

[Keep The Reason]

And who has the final say in what is "Christianity" and what isn't? The most conservative wing? The liberals? The atheists? Social scientists? Theologians? God? Who gets to define what the word means in the context of a discussion like this one?

Well, if Christians are right, I suppose that would be, you know, GOD.

But, this seems to be beyond his skillset now, doesn't it?

One thing that seems consistent though is Christians themselves can't figure it out, can they?

[tirtlegrrl]

And who has the final say in what is "Christianity" and what isn't? The most conservative wing? The liberals? The atheists? Social scientists? Theologians? God? Who gets to define what the word means in the context of a discussion like this one?

Well, if Christians are right, I suppose that would be, you know, GOD.

But, this seems to be beyond his skillset now, doesn't it?

One thing that seems consistent though is Christians themselves can't figure it out, can they?

So then on what basis are you telling jordan that his "redefinition" of Christianity is "no longer Christianity"? Do you have a missive from God that says "jordanws is wrong"? Do you mean Christianity as a particular group of doctrines that people squabble about, and you're taking one group's version as the norm, or Christianity the 2 billion people that call themselves Christian?

[marcuspnw]

And who has the final say in what is "Christianity" and what isn't? The most conservative wing? The liberals? The atheists? Social scientists? Theologians? God? Who gets to define what the word means in the context of a discussion like this one?

It was in Antioch where the followers of Jesus were first referred to as Christians so they've got dibbs! Find out what they confessed and you'll be on solid, Biblical ground.

[mitchellmckain]

It was in Antioch where the followers of Jesus were first referred to as Christians so they've got dibbs! Find out what they confessed and you'll be on solid, Biblical ground.

How is this different than saying that if you want to know what science really is then you have to find out what Galileo actually believed? The first scientists may have been on the right track, but they also had some pretty crazy ideas and were way off on a lot of things. Even if we are just talking about the definition of science, it is worthwhile to give the whole constellation of ideas some time to crystalize.

This whole line of thinking you put forward is based on an idea of God that gives His truth and goes away and so we have to find that original message before it got distorted. But I don't believe in the dead god of long ago but in the living God of the right here and now.

So if we are talking about the definition of words then we have to acknowledge that communication requires that they be based upon consensus and thus it is not a matter of which definition was earliest but which definition represents the largest consensus.

[marcuspnw]

It was in Antioch where the followers of Jesus were first referred to as Christians so they've got dibbs! Find out what they confessed and you'll be on solid, Biblical ground.

How is this different than saying that if you want to know what science really is then you have to find out what Galileo actually believed? The first scientists may have been on the right track, but they also had some pretty crazy ideas and were way off on a lot of things. Even if we are just talking about the definition of science, it is worthwhile to give the whole constellation of ideas some time to crystalize.

This whole line of thinking you put forward is based on an idea of God that gives His truth and goes away and so we have to find that original message before it got distorted. But I don't believe in the dead god of long ago but in the living God of the right here and now.

So if we are talking about the definition of words then we have to acknowledge that communication requires that they be based upon consensus and thus it is not a matter of which definition was earliest but which definition represents the largest consensus.

Hi Mitch! Hope your comfortable in the heat. Thanks for your comments.

We're talking history not science and the rule of thumb has been that the closer you get to the source, the less chance for corruption in the original message. Now that's an assumption but it's yielded some fruit especially in defense of Christianity. I believe Christians are confident that they can trace the ideas expressed in the Nicene creed back to the church in Antioch and the ideas expressed by Paul. In the past, skeptics would claim that the stories of the gospels were created hundreds of years after the time of Christ but thanks to the diligent work of historical scholars, believers and nonbelievers alike, that line of argument is less and less effective IMO.

Now, none of this means that I believe you worship a dead God or a God that isn't involved in His Creation. I understand that you worship a living God. I apologize if you thought that my comments implied otherwise.

[tirtlegrrl]

Hi Marcus,

I appreciate your points.

For me the question of "what is Christianity" is similar to the question "what is English" (meaning the language). Granted Christianity arose rather suddenly and English arose gradually, but when you're talking about how the term is used today, it's like saying that the only true English language is the one spoken by Chaucer or Shakespeare and what we speak today isn't "real English". I'm interested in where we draw the boundary lines at the current time, after the faith has developed and split and developed again over many centuries. If a person assents to certain doctrines (or perhaps if they don't) but their vision of what it means and the metaphors they use to describe it are totally different, at what point can you say they don't really have the same beliefs as other self-described adherents of the doctrines? John Shelby Spong would probably wholeheartedly recite the Apostle's Creed, but what he visualises it to mean is probably very unlike the vision of, say, John Calvin. So are the only people we can call "Christians" the ones that we know believe EXACTLY what the first generation of Christians believed (and not even they were unified!)? Should we call liberal Methodists or Catholics or Episcopalians something other than "Christian"?

[marcuspnw]

Hi Marcus,

I appreciate your points.

For me the question of "what is Christianity" is similar to the question "what is English" (meaning the language). Granted Christianity arose rather suddenly and English arose gradually, but when you're talking about how the term is used today, it's like saying that the only true English language is the one spoken by Chaucer or Shakespeare and what we speak today isn't "real English". I'm interested in where we draw the boundary lines at the current time, after the faith has developed and split and developed again over many centuries. If a person assents to certain doctrines (or perhaps if they don't) but their vision of what it means and the metaphors they use to describe it are totally different, at what point can you say they don't really have the same beliefs as other self-described adherents of the doctrines? John Shelby Spong would probably wholeheartedly recite the Apostle's Creed, but what he visualises it to mean is probably very unlike the vision of, say, John Calvin. So are the only people we can call "Christians" the ones that we know believe EXACTLY what the first generation of Christians believed (and not even they were unified!)? Should we call liberal Methodists or Catholics or Episcopalians something other than "Christian"?

Although Spong and Calvin might vehemently disagree over doctrine, they would both confess love and loyalty to Jesus Christ. If Christ is your highest priority when it comes to love, life & obedience and of course along with that the concern and welfare of your neighbor as equal to yourself, then you are a Christian. If His words are the ones you most cherish and look to for guidance and strength, then I would call you a Christian. But I would think that you would have to accept something ecumenical and historical like the Nicene confession as a minimal basis for understanding Him as best as you can for who He is.

[Keep The Reason]

So then on what basis are you telling jordan that his "redefinition" of Christianity is "no longer Christianity"? Do you have a missive from God that says "jordanws is wrong"? Do you mean Christianity as a particular group of doctrines that people squabble about, and you're taking one group's version as the norm, or Christianity the 2 billion people that call themselves Christian?

On the basis of logic and the Law of Identity.

See where jordan says this:

What I'm trying to do is draw a distinction between what the scripture actually says, and the doctrine that people have built upon their understanding of scripture.

?

See, he's doing exactly the same thing as those people he claims have "made a doctrine built upon their understanding of it (scripture)". What, you don't think all those other interpretations weren't justified by the people who conjured them by saying exactly the same thing jordan is saying now? (That was a rhetorical question.)

So, either his response to "what scripture really says" is going to be nothing new (hence it will be scriptural Christianity, much like all those other endless sects), or it will be something other than scriptural Christianity. If the former, he'll maintain salvation/belief Christianity (hence, won't be any different).

If the latter "defining" is where he lands, then by his own mode, he's redefining Christianity into something it isn't (otherwise-- it would be scriptural Christianity). This is the Law of Identity-- either something is what it is, or it is something else, but it cannot be the same at the same time and in the same respect.

Thus, it's on the basis of his own intent to define it differently than what it is, or by his repeating the same error countless other sectarians have made, thinking "Ah, now I have it right... Eureka!" on that basis I (and everyone else) can assess he'll fail at this.