What I believe
Dec. 20th, 2007 01:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
toothycatWell, part of it at least, because some people are interested.
It's worth noting that I don't speak for Serge here - we may share a LJ (because we only really use it to read other peoples' posts ;) and we may be married, but we aren't linked at the mind ;) Also, my beliefs have changed quite a bit over the years and I don't promise I won't change my mind on some things or the way I said them tomorrow.
This (in italics) is the Apostles' Creed, anyway, one of the earliest creeds of Christianity. I'm going to start with it but probably not end - I'm posting this late at night, and religion and belief are complicated, never mind the tangles my head can get into. There will probably be more, depending on what questions get asked.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in a Creator, who made the universe. I am, among many other things, an evolutionary biologist who is currently masquerading as a geneticist; I think God created everything and that evolution is the tool he used to do it, the brush with which he painted the world. I don't believe that is incompatible with Genesis, nor do I think that belief in a literal Creation is unChristian or in any way incompatible with Christianity (it does annoy me when non-Christians become convinced that one has to leave one's brain at the door when one enters a church).
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
So yeah, the Trinity. I suppose I think of the Trinity in a very vague and fuzzy way. I am not only a scientist; in fact, first and foremost, although I think I tend to logical and rational thinking (at least, I try to) I would identify myself as a storyteller before I identify as a scientist. As such, I recognise that not everything is divisible or explainable in the current human languages and vocabulary. Possibly a good analogy for the Trinity is the three phases of water; ice, liquid, steam. They're all water, but different aspects. Anyway, I believe that there is one God and three persons in the Trinity, and I recognise that there are some things beyond my current comprehension. I'm willing to accept the Trinity on faith.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter if he was the product of rape or fornication? I don't think (as I understand Catholics do) that Mary was sinless. However, if you're going to swallow the idea that God is all powerful and made the universe, is it really so hard to believe that he could cause a virgin to be pregnant? There are much harder things in Christianity to handle than that, after all. So yes, I do believe he was born of a virgin, and then obviously God (the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity) would have had a hand in it.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again.
The subject of atonement is never an easy one to explain. There are so many explanations and I have met people who insist that unless you accept their personal choice (usually penal substitutionary atonement, for those who are interested), you're not a proper Christian. That kind of attitude annoys me.
To go back to the beginning, I believe that every person born gets things wrong (except Jesus). We tend to stray, just like an apple, left to its own devices with nothing to support it, tends to fall. My view is that God wants us all to be with him; he loves us and longs for us to know him. However, because we have done wrong things (of our own free will, I should add), we cannot exist in the same place as God. His goodness and holiness and our wrongness or sinfulness literally cannot co-exist, like shadows can't exist when a dazzling light illuminates every corner of a room.
The entire Old Testament consists of God making covenants with his people, which they then broke. Those covenants - well, that covenant; it gets restated but it's pretty much the same one - consist of a promise on the part of Israel, God's people, to obey God's laws, and on God's part to forgive their sins and provide them with the promised land and what they need to survive - more, every good thing. God does actually enjoy giving us good things. (Note: I'm not a theologian. I could be getting this vastly wrong, but it's my understanding and a quick and probably somewhat flawed summary). The Israelites couldn't keep their covenant, and went through cycles of disobeying, being warned, being punished (which was also written into the covenant) and repenting and being rescued.
The new covenant is one where God upholds both sides, and because he is perfect, the covenant remains unbroken. He provides the reward, and he also provides the perfect life and obedience required to claim it. Because Jesus died - whatever the exact theological mechanism - we are permitted to claim his perfect life as ours, and so we receive his reward. We can then be in God's presence after death, because our sin has been removed.
Hell's not mentioned in the creed, but it did come up in previous conversations, so here's what I think. If someone chooses not to let God get rid of their sin (via Jesus), then God has no choice but to let them exist apart from him. I think that is hell; not a place of punishment as such but a place of being apart from God, who is the source and centre of everything that exists.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Jesus was perfect himself, and thus did not remain damned. Like I say, I don't pretend to understand how it all works.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
As it says. I have no idea when this will be.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
Whoo, lots there. I've already mentioned the Spirit. The 'holy catholic church' means the worldwide church, not that part of it that is the Roman Catholic church, although they are a part of that worldwide church. I think God is rather less bothered by denominational divides than we (Christian) like to think. I'm sure he'd rather have heartfelt devotion than absolute doctrinal correctness. (Do I get excommunicated now? ;).
The communion of saints, as I understand it, means that we're part of the family of believers ('saints' means Christians here, and makes no inferences about how holy an individual Christian is). As such, I should consider every Christian a part of my family. Even the ones I disagree violently with ^^;;
The resurrection of the body is interesting. I actually don't believe in souls - well, rather, I think it's an unnecessary term. We are built out of meat, our minds reside in the yellowish matter that is our brain. So to me it makes sense that it's our bodies that get resurrected, because without them, we are not ourselves. Mind and body are irrevocably linked. I don't think people born with disabilities will be resurrected with those disabilities; I don't know how it works. But I do believe that, in heaven, we will have bodies. And hopefully there will be jaffa cakes too ;)
Life everlasting is reasonably clear, but I should say that I have absolutely no idea what it will be like - except that it will be everything earthly life should be but isn't quite. Everything will be clearer, richer, more satisfying, more real. I love the accounts of heaven in Revelations, and I'm looking forward to finding out what it will be like, but I have no idea what it will actually be. I think - I suspect - that there will be paper and pencils there for me, though :)
----
That's it for the Creed. Here's a chunk of conversation from Rob's LJ that may (or may not) be of interest. Rob's parts are in italics.
I'd be interested to know what you think happens to non Christians who haven't heard the gospel
As far as I understand it, they are judged on their lives as they are. God knows what their response would be had they heard, and their lives should bear that out. I believe that is supported in the Bible, although I can't remember where and I could be wrong.
those who hear it and dismiss it
Depends on why. If all they hear/see is Jack Chick, I can't see God blaming them! ^^;;
and those who actively reject it.
See above. I honestly don't think we can tell what a person's eternal fate is. That doesn't mean I think Christians shouldn't tell people about Jesus; actively knowing him, in my opinion, is better than not.
....
Do you think that the only method God has of preventing people going to hell is if those people choose to become Christians?
I think that the only way to God is through Jesus. I don't think that that necessarily limits people to a particular set of rules or a brand of Christianity, but I would of course be very wary of recommending anything other than following Jesis (since that's the only thing I know that's guaranteed to work). I don't think, for example, that a Muslim who has no knowledge of Christ and who sincerely tried to follow Allah would necessarily be damned, and if he is saved, then it must be through Jesus somehow, since he is the only name by which men may be saved. But if I met that Muslim and he asked me what I would recommend, I would recommend Christianity every time (roughly speaking - obviously more thought and consideration would go into it ;).
----
Once, a friend asked Serge what Christianity was about, and he said, 'knowing Jesus'. I don't think I have the kind of relationship with Jesus that, say, Paul the Apostle did. I'd like to, but I don't. I do think that Serge's is a good, brief explanation. Like I said, I don't think correct doctrine is the be-all and end-all; if it were, people with limited mental faculties would be excluded, and that can't be the case. So I do think it boils down to trusting God.
That, for me, is a gift. I was brought up as a Christian, I made the commitment when I was 4 and I was baptised when I was about 11, I think. I have never doubted God's existence, (lots of other things, but never his existence). I did spend several weeks thinking that I couldn't be a Christian, because I couldn't see any sign of God in my life. I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that if, as I believed, God existed, and he was the God of the Bible, then I must be a Christian because I had committed myself to following him and I meant it. And for everything I said above, for all my woolly reasoning and the arguments that may be brought to bear, above all else I trust in God and I believe he can and will do the things he has promised.
I'm going to finish with a fantastic quote that I love to bits. "Man's chief purpose is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." I think (after a swift google) it's from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I strive to do both of those.
Any questions, go ahead. I don't promise to be able to answer them, satisfactorily or not. I don't have enough time to handle large online conversations (note that I am posting this at 1:14 in the morning and I'm getting up at 5:45). But I can try :)
It's worth noting that I don't speak for Serge here - we may share a LJ (because we only really use it to read other peoples' posts ;) and we may be married, but we aren't linked at the mind ;) Also, my beliefs have changed quite a bit over the years and I don't promise I won't change my mind on some things or the way I said them tomorrow.
This (in italics) is the Apostles' Creed, anyway, one of the earliest creeds of Christianity. I'm going to start with it but probably not end - I'm posting this late at night, and religion and belief are complicated, never mind the tangles my head can get into. There will probably be more, depending on what questions get asked.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in a Creator, who made the universe. I am, among many other things, an evolutionary biologist who is currently masquerading as a geneticist; I think God created everything and that evolution is the tool he used to do it, the brush with which he painted the world. I don't believe that is incompatible with Genesis, nor do I think that belief in a literal Creation is unChristian or in any way incompatible with Christianity (it does annoy me when non-Christians become convinced that one has to leave one's brain at the door when one enters a church).
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
So yeah, the Trinity. I suppose I think of the Trinity in a very vague and fuzzy way. I am not only a scientist; in fact, first and foremost, although I think I tend to logical and rational thinking (at least, I try to) I would identify myself as a storyteller before I identify as a scientist. As such, I recognise that not everything is divisible or explainable in the current human languages and vocabulary. Possibly a good analogy for the Trinity is the three phases of water; ice, liquid, steam. They're all water, but different aspects. Anyway, I believe that there is one God and three persons in the Trinity, and I recognise that there are some things beyond my current comprehension. I'm willing to accept the Trinity on faith.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter if he was the product of rape or fornication? I don't think (as I understand Catholics do) that Mary was sinless. However, if you're going to swallow the idea that God is all powerful and made the universe, is it really so hard to believe that he could cause a virgin to be pregnant? There are much harder things in Christianity to handle than that, after all. So yes, I do believe he was born of a virgin, and then obviously God (the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity) would have had a hand in it.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again.
The subject of atonement is never an easy one to explain. There are so many explanations and I have met people who insist that unless you accept their personal choice (usually penal substitutionary atonement, for those who are interested), you're not a proper Christian. That kind of attitude annoys me.
To go back to the beginning, I believe that every person born gets things wrong (except Jesus). We tend to stray, just like an apple, left to its own devices with nothing to support it, tends to fall. My view is that God wants us all to be with him; he loves us and longs for us to know him. However, because we have done wrong things (of our own free will, I should add), we cannot exist in the same place as God. His goodness and holiness and our wrongness or sinfulness literally cannot co-exist, like shadows can't exist when a dazzling light illuminates every corner of a room.
The entire Old Testament consists of God making covenants with his people, which they then broke. Those covenants - well, that covenant; it gets restated but it's pretty much the same one - consist of a promise on the part of Israel, God's people, to obey God's laws, and on God's part to forgive their sins and provide them with the promised land and what they need to survive - more, every good thing. God does actually enjoy giving us good things. (Note: I'm not a theologian. I could be getting this vastly wrong, but it's my understanding and a quick and probably somewhat flawed summary). The Israelites couldn't keep their covenant, and went through cycles of disobeying, being warned, being punished (which was also written into the covenant) and repenting and being rescued.
The new covenant is one where God upholds both sides, and because he is perfect, the covenant remains unbroken. He provides the reward, and he also provides the perfect life and obedience required to claim it. Because Jesus died - whatever the exact theological mechanism - we are permitted to claim his perfect life as ours, and so we receive his reward. We can then be in God's presence after death, because our sin has been removed.
Hell's not mentioned in the creed, but it did come up in previous conversations, so here's what I think. If someone chooses not to let God get rid of their sin (via Jesus), then God has no choice but to let them exist apart from him. I think that is hell; not a place of punishment as such but a place of being apart from God, who is the source and centre of everything that exists.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Jesus was perfect himself, and thus did not remain damned. Like I say, I don't pretend to understand how it all works.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
As it says. I have no idea when this will be.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
Whoo, lots there. I've already mentioned the Spirit. The 'holy catholic church' means the worldwide church, not that part of it that is the Roman Catholic church, although they are a part of that worldwide church. I think God is rather less bothered by denominational divides than we (Christian) like to think. I'm sure he'd rather have heartfelt devotion than absolute doctrinal correctness. (Do I get excommunicated now? ;).
The communion of saints, as I understand it, means that we're part of the family of believers ('saints' means Christians here, and makes no inferences about how holy an individual Christian is). As such, I should consider every Christian a part of my family. Even the ones I disagree violently with ^^;;
The resurrection of the body is interesting. I actually don't believe in souls - well, rather, I think it's an unnecessary term. We are built out of meat, our minds reside in the yellowish matter that is our brain. So to me it makes sense that it's our bodies that get resurrected, because without them, we are not ourselves. Mind and body are irrevocably linked. I don't think people born with disabilities will be resurrected with those disabilities; I don't know how it works. But I do believe that, in heaven, we will have bodies. And hopefully there will be jaffa cakes too ;)
Life everlasting is reasonably clear, but I should say that I have absolutely no idea what it will be like - except that it will be everything earthly life should be but isn't quite. Everything will be clearer, richer, more satisfying, more real. I love the accounts of heaven in Revelations, and I'm looking forward to finding out what it will be like, but I have no idea what it will actually be. I think - I suspect - that there will be paper and pencils there for me, though :)
----
That's it for the Creed. Here's a chunk of conversation from Rob's LJ that may (or may not) be of interest. Rob's parts are in italics.
I'd be interested to know what you think happens to non Christians who haven't heard the gospel
As far as I understand it, they are judged on their lives as they are. God knows what their response would be had they heard, and their lives should bear that out. I believe that is supported in the Bible, although I can't remember where and I could be wrong.
those who hear it and dismiss it
Depends on why. If all they hear/see is Jack Chick, I can't see God blaming them! ^^;;
and those who actively reject it.
See above. I honestly don't think we can tell what a person's eternal fate is. That doesn't mean I think Christians shouldn't tell people about Jesus; actively knowing him, in my opinion, is better than not.
....
Do you think that the only method God has of preventing people going to hell is if those people choose to become Christians?
I think that the only way to God is through Jesus. I don't think that that necessarily limits people to a particular set of rules or a brand of Christianity, but I would of course be very wary of recommending anything other than following Jesis (since that's the only thing I know that's guaranteed to work). I don't think, for example, that a Muslim who has no knowledge of Christ and who sincerely tried to follow Allah would necessarily be damned, and if he is saved, then it must be through Jesus somehow, since he is the only name by which men may be saved. But if I met that Muslim and he asked me what I would recommend, I would recommend Christianity every time (roughly speaking - obviously more thought and consideration would go into it ;).
----
Once, a friend asked Serge what Christianity was about, and he said, 'knowing Jesus'. I don't think I have the kind of relationship with Jesus that, say, Paul the Apostle did. I'd like to, but I don't. I do think that Serge's is a good, brief explanation. Like I said, I don't think correct doctrine is the be-all and end-all; if it were, people with limited mental faculties would be excluded, and that can't be the case. So I do think it boils down to trusting God.
That, for me, is a gift. I was brought up as a Christian, I made the commitment when I was 4 and I was baptised when I was about 11, I think. I have never doubted God's existence, (lots of other things, but never his existence). I did spend several weeks thinking that I couldn't be a Christian, because I couldn't see any sign of God in my life. I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that if, as I believed, God existed, and he was the God of the Bible, then I must be a Christian because I had committed myself to following him and I meant it. And for everything I said above, for all my woolly reasoning and the arguments that may be brought to bear, above all else I trust in God and I believe he can and will do the things he has promised.
I'm going to finish with a fantastic quote that I love to bits. "Man's chief purpose is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." I think (after a swift google) it's from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I strive to do both of those.
Any questions, go ahead. I don't promise to be able to answer them, satisfactorily or not. I don't have enough time to handle large online conversations (note that I am posting this at 1:14 in the morning and I'm getting up at 5:45). But I can try :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 09:49 am (UTC)For me, the thing that makes the existence of God seem most credible is the fact that humans can take pleasure from the beauty of nature. There's no simple need for us as animals to take pleasure from the sight of a butterfly or rainbow, or, for that matter, to want to try to imitate those things with pen and paper or clay. It makes sense to me that God, as creator, is the source of creativity.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 09:55 am (UTC)Yeah, absolutely! I love the idea that God appreciates our own creations because they're reflecting his image in us. We had a set of sermons at our church about two or three years ago about how God is glorified in every part of our lives, our work, our hobbies - it's all as relevant as, say, a job as a missionary or working in Sunday School. They actually got people like playwrights and artists up to talk about their work before the sermons. I really appreciated that, because there is a tendency to feel that comicking (or any creativity) is just a hobby and if it doesn't mention God explicitly, it's not connected - but of course, it is :)
As for evolution, I used to think it untrue until I actually studied it ;) I miss it a bit now. I'd like to go back to it for my next postdoc, if I can ^^
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 10:22 am (UTC)I think it's much more impressive that God created a world with the right conditions for creatures "in his image" to evolve, than that he simply created them directly.
As a programmer I can appreciate that it's usually a more interesting challenge to write programs which write programs, than simply to write programs. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 10:32 am (UTC)There are problems with being an Evangelical and having a non-literal reading of Genesis though. If you do that you lose the mechanism by which the problem which evangelicals say Jesus came to deal with arose, and you're left with dangling questions about what the bits in later Biblical authors that refer back to creation and the fall actually mean (examples of this can be found on plenty of creationist sites), and about bits of theology which seem to rely on literal creation.
For example the mainstream Evangelical belief is that natural disasters, disease, and so on are a result of human sin, that nature is fallen as well as humanity. This is a component of Evangelical theodicy too. Without a literal Fall, there was never a perfect world to start with, and these natural disasters are just the outworking of physical laws which have been operating on the planet both before and after humans turned up. Human sin has no cosmological effect.
So, a key motivation for literal creationism is that it provides the pre-cursor for the rest of Evangelical theology. Without it, you are left in the slightly uncomfortable position of saying "well, I believe that human sin spoiled a world that once was perfect, but I don't understand how that happened, and I'm just going to ignore this apparent explanation I have here because science says it is false".
(edited to change icon to the one I meant to click on)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 01:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 07:00 pm (UTC)Anyway. I don't believe that death - bodily death - is a bad thing, I think it's part of life. I believe that, originally, we were meant to live on this world, look after it, appreciate it, and die and be with God forever after that. So I don't have a problem with the idea that death was present before the Fall. I don't know about natural disasters. I don't know what the first sin (and was that Adam's or Satan's?) brought into the world. I do think that, once sin had spoiled the relationship between God and men, everything started to go wrong.
Ultimately, for me, it's not a debate between science and my reading of the Bible. It's a debate between science, my reading of the Bible and my knowledge of God (reason, scripture and experience, three of the four pillars of faith. The other is tradition, if I remember correctly). Now, I don't know if the Bible is infallible or not (in its present form, as originally given, whatever) - and I don't think it matters, because however infallible it is, it is being read by a fallible human being. Therefore, if science and my reading of the Bible are in conflict, I don't have a problem with coming to the conclusion that I simply don't understand the Bible properly. I certainly am not a theologian. However, I will continue to believe in God, and to be honest, if I'm wrong and it was Creation, I don't mind :)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 07:20 pm (UTC)I don't know if you would identify as being an Evangelical or not (would you?), but you go to a mainstream Evangelical church, so mainstream Evangelical theology seemed like a good place to start when asking a question.
I believe that, originally, we were meant to live on this world, look after it, appreciate it, and die and be with God forever after that. So I don't have a problem with the idea that death was present before the Fall
Interesting. How have you reached this conclusion?
I could easily be wrong, but my reading of the Bible from when I was an Evangelical made me conclude that death was a result of the sin of Adam because of many passages like Romans 5:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%205;&version=31;): "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned".
Therefore, if science and my reading of the Bible are in conflict, I don't have a problem with coming to the conclusion that I simply don't understand the Bible properly.
So if you found a serious contradiction between faith and science you'd assume that there really isn't a contradiction, and that there only appears to be because of your fallible assessment of the supposed contradiction? Doesn't that make you somewhat blind to any future contradictions that would show your faith is incorrect?
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 07:52 pm (UTC)I don't know what I'd identify as. And no, the best place to start is the faith I have described as mine ;)
Interesting. How have you reached this conclusion?
Discussion, reason. UKRC ;)
I could easily be wrong, but my reading of the Bible from when I was an Evangelical made me conclude that death was a result of the sin of Adam because of many passages like Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned".
Death there I take to mean spiritual death..
So if you found a serious contradiction between faith and science you'd assume that there really isn't a contradiction, and that there only appears to be because of your fallible assessment of the supposed contradiction? Doesn't that make you somewhat blind to any future contradictions that would show your faith is incorrect?
I don't know - it hasn't happened yet. Obviously (I hope!) I wouldn't just blindly plunge ahead without thinking about it. I'll worry about it when it happens.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 07:56 pm (UTC)OK.
It was an error on my part to assume that you were an Evangelical Christian. I assumed this because you attend a Reformed Evangelical church.
Is Mr
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 10:39 pm (UTC)As to Serge, you'd better ask him, I'm afraid :)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 10:41 pm (UTC)