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 07:28 pm (UTC)So for example you might not think a virgin birth is critically important, or the trinity. I'm wondering what things are absolutely core (e.g. that someone called Jesus existed who died for your sins)?
Those are intellectual things, but are there experiential things, or things about the nature of the world that if they were missing (or conversely if certain things were present) you'd either have trouble continuing to believe or would choose not to.
I ask because as others have said (http://pw201.livejournal.com/21769.html) Evangelicalism can produces a very strong faith (largely based on biblical correctness) it can also be very brittle, but clearly your faith is not like that. Perhaps this will help me understand how your faith differs from that of other Christians I know, and keep assuming you are similar to.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 07:56 pm (UTC)So for example you might not think a virgin birth is critically important, or the trinity. I'm wondering what things are absolutely core (e.g. that someone called Jesus existed who died for your sins)?
Oh goodness, I can't make a list like that - I'd be here all night! The virgin birth I don't think is critically important. The Trinity is more so. Ultimately, I think the most important thing is Jesus, who he is (hence why the Trinity is important, I guess) and what he did (so there has to be a doctrine of sin and redemption somewhere). Jesus is who matters. That doesn't mean other things don't.
Those are intellectual things, but are there experiential things, or things about the nature of the world that if they were missing (or conversely if certain things were present) you'd either have trouble continuing to believe or would choose not to.
... I don't know, partly because I'm not sure I can envisage what you mean (examples would be useful).
I ask because as others have said Evangelicalism can produces a very strong faith (largely based on biblical correctness) it can also be very brittle, but clearly your faith is not like that. Perhaps this will help me understand how your faith differs from that of other Christians I know, and keep assuming you are similar to.
I hope that helps. I have been Evangelical, but to my mind that sort of structure is too rigid. God is far, far bigger than the human mind can encompass, and trying to fit him into rules and 'it happens this way' just isn't going to work.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 08:03 pm (UTC)OK. What if those things were metaphorical (like the Genesis account) rather than literal things that actually happened in history?
... I don't know, partly because I'm not sure I can envisage what you mean (examples would be useful).
Typically something very bad happens or someone becomes aware of very bad things in the world (say they have to go work in a war zone or something) and then they consider that the world as they now understand it doesn't match up with the existence of an all powerful God who could easily prevent those things.
That's a very bad example as it is the kind of thing that is only an issue to people when they directly experience these things. I imagine there are other things like that that one might be more likely to encounter, but they're probably so personal it's impossible for me to suggest any.
If you can't think of any there probably aren't any, or there aren't any that you are aware of.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 08:36 pm (UTC)and it would help if I log in before I make comments - toothycat, feel free to delete my failed one!
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 08:39 pm (UTC)Feel free to reply to the Christianity posts on my blog too if you're interested in those (and you can wade through the enormous number of posts on some of them).
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 08:44 pm (UTC)I have already read all the Christianity posts on your blog and their comments
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 08:46 pm (UTC)Yeah, I knew* that.
* as in high certainty based on an estimation of who you are rather than any stalking...
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 10:45 pm (UTC)I don't think I would write Genesis off as just metaphorical. What is described in Genesis did happen. Just.. not in exactly this reality.
I'm not going to be able to explain that easily, I'm afraid. It's about stories, and the way I think, and the way narrative works and the way I see things.
Anyway. No. Jesus' death had to be a real human death, like his life had to be a real human life. As I understand it, anyway.
Typically something very bad happens or someone becomes aware of very bad things in the world (say they have to go work in a war zone or something) and then they consider that the world as they now understand it doesn't match up with the existence of an all powerful God who could easily prevent those things.
That's a very bad example as it is the kind of thing that is only an issue to people when they directly experience these things.
.. and also it's the kind of thing that people have often already thought about, so have those thoughts to start from when floundering in a sea of horror.
I imagine there are other things like that that one might be more likely to encounter, but they're probably so personal it's impossible for me to suggest any.
If you can't think of any there probably aren't any, or there aren't any that you are aware of.
I'm afraid I think there aren't any I'm aware of, so that will have to rest for now - sorry. I honestly can't imagine anything experiential that would cause me to stop believing in God. I might - I do - have doubts and confusion, I change my mind about doctrines and so on, but at the bottom, I believe in Jesus and that's all that matters.
That's not to say it won't happen, but I can't imagine it.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 10:55 pm (UTC)I'm not going to be able to explain that easily, I'm afraid.
Can you try? :-)
I can understand that the account in the story more or less happened (literal). That it didn't happen but the story or truth behind it is true in some sense (metaphorical). There are a bunch of other ways of understanding it that are variations on these two, but I've never heard of someone say it did happen but not in this reality.
What does that mean? Are there multiple realities? Why do you believe that? I've never heard anything like that before. Is it something you've got from the Bible, you've thought of yourself, or has it been divinely revealed to you?
Anyway. No. Jesus' death had to be a real human death, like his life had to be a real human life. As I understand it, anyway.
Why did it have to be a real human death? I mean - I thought Jesus death actual death was important because the actual shedding of blood is important, etc.. but given that all those things are made up by God (and reasonably arbitrary) I don't see why he couldn't have it all as a metaphor and it still work.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 11:13 pm (UTC)No. I don't have time, and I don't understand it myself.
Are there multiple realities?
I think God is more real than us, just as I am more real than my characters (and no, I don't think we're characters in a story God is writing). I don't think that's multiple realities.
Why do you believe that? I've never heard anything like that before. Is it something you've got from the Bible, you've thought of yourself, or has it been divinely revealed to you?
Haha. No. I don't normally get divine revelations. It's something that makes intuitive sense to me as a Christian and a storyteller. There's an awful lot more to the world than just what we see and experience. Just saying 'Genesis is metaphorical' grates, and I don't think it quite captures how I feel about it.
I haven't put a huge amount of thought into it because ultimately, like I say, it doesn't matter. It's not a salvation issue.
Why did it have to be a real human death? I mean - I thought Jesus death actual death was important because the actual shedding of blood is important, etc.. but given that all those things are made up by God (and reasonably arbitrary) I don't see why he couldn't have it all as a metaphor and it still work.
Because reality is important. Imagine Serge told me he loved me and was going to get me a bunch of roses. I don't want a metaphorical bunch! We are real people, we need a real Saviour.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 12:03 am (UTC)Surely what is important is that Serge loves you, not that you get physical roses.
In as much as you like physical roses it's because there are rules that govern what you like, how you react to things. I would say they're rules purely based on the scientific laws of nature that have shaped matter into a brain that works on those laws, but it makes no difference to my point if the nature of you that likes receiving physical roses comes about in some other manner. Because God made you do like roses, he designed humanity, consciousness, men, women, colour, smell, flowers, etc... all in the knowledge that such design would result in you liking roses. He /could/ have designed you to like metaphorical roses just as much.
Likewise (and more relevantly) the requirement for a physical saviour (if there is one) is because God created a need for one (you think). God being omnipotent could made only the message behind it be important, the metaphor, a non physical Jesus, or anything at all he wanted. The point being that a omnipotent God can do anything (that isn't logically impossible), and it would be very easy for him to make it so that the shedding of physical blood is not a requirement (as that is a rule he arbitrarily made himself).
It seems to me that as soon as you open the door to not reading the Bible in the way Evangelicals do you've opened the door to the account being metaphorical or otherwise non literal. And as an omnipotent God can do anything you can go pretty much anywhere with your ideas and say you're a Christian. As I said before, as far as Bishop Spong (who says we need to get rid of the idea of God in theism, and yet he is a Episcopalian Bishop!!!)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 09:02 pm (UTC)I like to think in axioms and catagories and things that are in and things that are out. This is, I think, the main thing that stopped me calling myself a Christian for so long, because I didn't believe in x,y and z, and my internal (slightly evangelical New Life) definition of a Christian was that Christians believed in x,y and z. Then I got more and more wound up as I met more and more Christians who when you poked them hard enough didn't seem to believe in x,y or z either, and still went around calling themselves Christians. I can see that if one person says "I believe in a giant fish orbiting the earth, and that's what the phrase 'I am a Christian' means to me" they're taking the piss. But if there are beliefs / disbeliefs that more than half the religion seem to be doing then maybe it is part of the meaning of the word, but you only see it once you start to think about it in depth. So for me, coming back to Christianity was about swallowing the idea that it's broader and deeper than a box ticking exercise of beliefs.
I think also that there are lots of things where it is hard to pin down a core set of beliefs, and in a way we make them up for convenience even though it leads to some odd edge cases. Like "What is the core thing that makes an animal a mammal?" There is a sort of "platonic ideal" of mammalness that we know and understand even if we can't put it into words (furry, makes milk, has live young etc). But then there are hundreds of borderline animals that fulfil most of our ideas but not all of them. Likewise questions such as "what is the core thing that makes something alive?" or "what is the core thing that makes something a person?". They're interesting questions, and thinking about them helps us understand what we're talking about, but generally what we conclude is "there are many things that we might expect, but if it lacks only one or two of them it's probably still a foo". It's a table with hundreds of legs. Asking "which legs must I take away to make the table fall over" seems to miss the point. Although obviously, some legs are more structual than others, if you were only to remove one the table would probably still stand. And although there is probably a subset that it is sufficient to remove to make the table fall, it is probably not necessary either!
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 09:21 pm (UTC)I'm a bit confused by your reference to corner cases. What are the corner cases you think are analogous here?
Likewise questions such as "what is the core thing that makes something alive?" or "what is the core thing that makes something a person?". They're interesting questions, and thinking about them helps us understand what we're talking about, but generally what we conclude is "there are many things that we might expect, but if it lacks only one or two of them it's probably still a foo".
But I'm not asking for a list so I can compare it against a list I have and determine whether
A personal question about why an individual believes seems to be tractable, while a complete definition of what makes someone a Christian wouldn't be (without lots of time to think about it at least).
As an Evangelical I didn't feel I had to understand everything, or tick all the boxes to be a Christian, but evangelicalism is something like the spiritual analogue of science (http://pw201.livejournal.com/80894.html). So as the different beliefs are related to one another if some of them appear not to be correct it may be that there is a knock on effect on the other beliefs. In this sense it is strong (when everything seems to work), but brittle (if things appear not to).
It would be much easier to say that things aren't related like this, or that it is all just mysterious and unknown. Then if something you read in the Bible turned out not to be true (and I'll say here that on most things I think the 'but we're fallible interpreters of the Bible' thing is over stated) then it wouldn't affect your faith very much. The downside of course is that if you do that you have lost the means of determining whether it is true or not, which to me at least is pretty important.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 12:01 pm (UTC)The downside of course is that if you do that you have lost the means of determining whether it is true or not
Yes, I think the majority of people have faith through what works, rather than what is true (and then make some sort of next step based on "it works, so it must be true" or "it works, so I will have faith in it being true"). Maybe that is what "faith" is all about. By working I mean things like praying / going to church making them feel closer to god, having feeling that god is with them helping them through the tough times in their life, seeing people who turn to god become better people, having a sense of god's love, etc etc.
What you appear to do when you want to understand things is dissect and dissect, down and down, to try and hone in on the core truth. It's an incredably powerful tool, and it works very well in mathematics and computer science. But sometimes ideas are not fuzzy and ill defined because we are limited in explaining them, they are fuzzy and ill defined because as people we are only seeing them through a glass, dimly. So we are giving fuzzy, often almost contradictory answers, so that when you look at the probability cloud sketched out by our answers as a whole, you can get a feel for the thing that we cannot understand (interestingly, I heard a nice argument that the best way for feeling what Christians believed in was to look at the things they didn't believe in and had declared herisies, and use them as the defining edges for some fuzzy cloud that had the right answer in it somewhere). This isn't just a "religion and the arts" type argument. We do it when we're trying to explain the behaviour of the electron too - sometimes we describe it as a wave, and sometimes as a particle, and then we wave our arms around and say it has wave-particle duality, but you can't sledgehammer an answer out of us with "what does that mean?" because the answer is "we don't know yet - these are the things we observe and know to be true, and although it seems to be a bit of a contradiction we think they are real observations, so although our description is confusing and poor and slightly contradictory it is our truth to the best of our ability".
You try to dissect things and dissect things (by looking at individual sentances like "what are the analogous corner cases" and arguing with comments one line at a time). Sometimes this is the best thing to do and it can be really helpful. But sometimes it is like chopping up a cat into smaller and smaller bits to try and understand essential catness - you don't find any essential catness, you just end up with a lot of mess.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 01:08 pm (UTC)I'm not talking about highly zoomed in theological minutiae though. I'm talking about very basic obvious life sized issues like "gay people are evilTM" (well, homosexual sex is a sin, let's say) or "God loves everyone and he has created this fiery pit for most of you to go to".
We don't give up in science on models that work at the macro level, but not when zoomed in, or in certain conditions because most of the time the models predict what we observe very well, and we don't have lots of competing models that all are more or less as accurate (i.e. other religions).
Do you think "it works, so it must be true" or "it works, so I will have faith in it being true" are good arguments?
I'll happily accept that religion 'works', but I care about whether it is true.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-20 10:58 pm (UTC)JOOI what were the x, y, zs they didn't believe in?
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 11:16 am (UTC)But as far as x,y, or z goes, if I come across anything upsetting or stupid or worrying in Christianity ("the bible contradicts itself, so it can't all be right" "the world was created in 4000BC" etc etc) then it had also been found upsetting or stupid or worrying to these christian friends. They didn't just swallow down "God murders babies so murdering babies is good". They found their own answers in different ways, mainly "I don't know the answer, but I trust God, but if I had to guess an answer ... God is constrained by the world in some sense and can't make it any better than it is / God didn't actually murder babies, that bit was just people getting things wrong / there is some deeper truth and if we knew everything God knew we could see it was OK etc" but they found the questions just as stupid and worrying and upsetting as I did. There were people who shared my views and my doubts and my feelings and still called themselves Christians.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 01:01 pm (UTC)When I come across people who say things like "I don't know the answer, but I trust God, but if I had to guess an answer ... God is constrained by the world in some sense and can't make it any better than it is" it sounds like "This is a serious problem / contradiction but I'm going to pretend it isn't". If every time a serious problem is found we just ignore it (or worse, as happens assume that it isn't actually a contradiction at all!) surely that is... very bad? I keep thinking it is, but maybe I'm wrong, I'm doing a very bad job of explaining why to these Christians.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 01:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 01:24 pm (UTC)When it was discovered that objects behave like waves AND particles it didn't take that long to work out what the model was that unified them. How many thousands of years has religion / philosophy had to find the 'grand unified theory' of how God can be so good and seemingly so evil at the same time (along with all the other contradictions).
The other key difference is that there was very very good evidence that objects were wave like, and very good evidence that they were particle like. AFAICT there isn't even very good evidence that any god exists. The situation for any specific god looks even worse, and the idea that a specific god thinks a specific thing is even worse than that (just look at the range of opinion on even the most basic things about Christianity).
I think a more fitting comparison with science is to say that the problems with God are like the belief in Luminiferous aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). There are people who still believe in aether or course, and they seem to be just like the people who say "Yes the theory has all these major problems, but I'm going to just magically assume that they will be solved in the future".
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 02:01 pm (UTC)You may find those explanations unsatisfactory, but it's a gross inaccuracy to say that the questions haven't been answered.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 02:18 pm (UTC)Also I don't buy the whole "Science is different, theology isn't like science" thing in the way people use it. All I'm asking for is the basic things (that a layman could easily notice) about the religion not to be contradictory.
Wave particle duality is a red herring, it's buried fairly deep in to physics, in the sense that you have to develop pretty complex science and technology before you notice it. The problems of religion, and Christianity in particular are sitting right on the surface, and all around us. You don't have to be a professional theologian to find them.
I'm also unconvinced that religion is as disconnected from science as people say. In as much as a religion makes claims about the observable physical world those claims fall in to the domain of science. The same is true for claims about human nature, history, and so on. A faith divorced from observable reality entirely might be able to keep outside of the microscope of science, but Christianity doesn't claim to be so disconnected.