Who is your God?

[Sherree]

There's as many divisions as to what true, biblical salvation is as there are so-called perfect doctrines.

If those "perfect doctrines" don't take away anything from biblical salvation, I can usually continue to fellowship with people of differing doctrine, unless the doctrine completely undermines the Word of God.

You're right, grampster. Many, today, see the Bible as an ancient document that is outdated. That's why so many keep trying to make it more contemporary, and changing it to suit their own world view.

[CaryC]

The thing I run into from some of the friends of mine who are religious is that they twist the scripture around to suit their world view. I find that a lot with Catholic friends who go to mass regularly, hang out with priests, jump through all the Catholic hoops, yet are pro abortion. (I'm not knocking the RCC here. It's just that most Catholics have never really read the bible.) They depend on being told what scripture means rather than prayerful contemplation of scripture and reading it to discover the Truth themselves. I have found that certain other sects of Christians do the same. Some rail about Catholics following tradition rather than scripture while creating their own traditions at the same time. I find many folks of the neo-liberal persuasion who treat the bible the same way as they treat the Constitution; that it is outdated and needs to conform to our cultural needs and wants at the present time rather than accommodating their beliefs and actions to the Word of God.

Agreed grampster. And it's not just the RCC. Truth be known it's in all of them. There have been times I could of used a 97 lb. Scofield on some Fundamental Independent Baptist Preachers just because of some of the stupid stuff they tried to say was Biblical. Word of Faith etc. None of us have it all down. Knowing that, I try to be careful and NOT read something into the passage that is NOT there, and be sure to read everything into the passage that IS there.

Like Adam and Eve eating an Apple. The Bible doesn't say that. Which I think we have referred to already.

I friend of ours (Independent Baptist Preacher) came over one day and we were kicking some stuff around, and he read a verse. When he got through, I told him it doesn't say that. He said it sure does. I said no it doesn't. I asked him are you reading the KJV (I knew he was), and he replied 'course. I said so am I, and it doesn't say that. I told him to read it again, slowly, thinking about the words as he read them. When he got through he said, it doesn't say that. He said, I've read it that way for so many years, I never really read the words, just repeated the same mantra for the verse as before.

He came back over maybe a month later, and told me he found himself doing that a lot with verses.

And the Southern Baptist have printed a gender neutral God Bible to conform to our culture. Makes me sick. Nickels, noses, and numbers.

[Wiskey Reb]

The thing I run into from some of the friends of mine who are religious is that they twist the scripture around to suit their world view. I find that a lot with Catholic friends who go to mass regularly, hang out with priests, jump through all the Catholic hoops, yet are pro abortion. (I'm not knocking the RCC here. It's just that most Catholics have never really read the bible.) They depend on being told what scripture means rather than prayerful contemplation of scripture and reading it to discover the Truth themselves. I have found that certain other sects of Christians do the same. Some rail about Catholics following tradition rather than scripture while creating their own traditions at the same time. I find many folks of the neo-liberal persuasion who treat the bible the same way as they treat the Constitution; that it is outdated and needs to conform to our cultural needs and wants at the present time rather than accommodating their beliefs and actions to the Word of God.

That's the issue with doctrines. They can be memorized, reiterated and compiled, yet remain fragmented from rational or sensical thought. While doctrinal positions can become traditional, as anything can, doctrine is not the same as tradition. A tradition is something people do, as opposed to a stated precept. Tradition can also become hollowed out when the purpose of it is lost or distorted. Both doctrine and tradition can be forces for good or evil, depending on the rationale behind them. But they fall into misuse when utilized as a measure for truth. In other words, a person or group can functionally fulfill the goal and purpose of a doctrine or tradition without ever embracing that doctrine or tradition in its stated form. In contrast, people perfectly stating a body of doctrine, or perfectly practicing a tradition, can completely miss the reason for why they were ever given, even embracing things completely contrary to the goal of the teaching. All the while, both together contribute to how a people establish agreeable rules for how they live and walk together.

So, what has happened, and is rampant in both religious and secular culture, is an outright rejection of tradition and doctrine. The result is a breakdown of community. By definition, any community has a certain modus operandi, rules of commonality and conduct. Common values and practices. But those have broken down into factious cliques or outright individualism whether on the secular basis of resistance to tyrrany or on the religious basis of sola scriptura.

We were meant to live in community, so we were meant to agree to certain perameters in order to be in community. Each of us has to decide what type of community it is they desire. We can have one of reasonable standards of thought and conduct at approaching doctrine and tradition, or we can have one of rigidity and harshness of doctrine and tradition. When we choose the latter, murderous sects will emerge, but peace is possible with the former, albeit not perfect agreement.

[Sherree]

We were meant to live in community, so we were meant to agree to certain perameters in order to be in community. Each of us has to decide what type of community it is they desire. We can have one of reasonable standards of thought and conduct at approaching doctrine and tradition, or we can have one of rigidity and harshness of doctrine and tradition. When we choose the latter, murderous sects will emerge, but peace is possible with the former, albeit not perfect agreement.

In a secular community, as long as the core standards are agreed upon, minor differences shouldn't be the cause of divisions.

Same with the religious community. As long as the standard of salvation is agreed upon, minor differences with doctrinal issues shouldn't cause divisions, but it does. Look at all of the different denominations. Even in denominations there are divisions.

Even though we have friends in many different denominations, there have been some who walked away from us over differing doctrinal views, but our views on salvation were the same. They were the ones to take issue, because we didn't agree staunchly with their views.

On the other hand, we can all have our standard of salvation agreed upon, but have doctrines that undermine the whole Word of God. Fellowship with those are usually unlikely.

Jews and anyone not Anglo-Saxon originating from Satan and Eve having sex is one such doctrine.

[Wiskey Reb]

[QUOTE]

In a secular community, as long as the core standards are agreed upon, minor differences shouldn't be the cause of divisions.

Same with the religious community. As long as the standard of salvation is agreed upon, minor differences with doctrinal issues shouldn't cause divisions, but it does. Look at all of the different denominations. Even in denominations there are divisions.

Fair enough. Yet even arriving at agreement on a comprehensive biblical definition of salvation about which all can agree is a major challenge. Even more so in regard to what types of issues might nullify salvation, if any. Whew, it's a loaded set of issues just addressing the one topic.

Even though we have friends in many different denominations, there have been some who walked away from us over differing doctrinal views, but our views on salvation were the same. They were the ones to take issue, because we didn't agree staunchly with their views.

Been there and have the t-shirt. That kind of rigidity usually only results in a rise of cultish leaders, factious religiosity, and ultimately disintegration of a following. It's strength is only as great as a leaders ability to convince and intimidate, or nurture as the case may be. And its legacy is only as long as its followers ability to either sustain that environment or modify the teachings to a more sustainable form, which is what we see in most of our Christian institutions named after or formed after big name leaders. It's sad that those movements' martyrs become marketing tools for the institution rather than examples in their own right.

But on the opposite end of that spectrum exists the possibility of going too far in accepting too liberal of a perspective. Yet, where do the most adequate boundaries begin and end? Imo, it is fruit and conduct more than doctrine and tradition. I've spent a life time hearing preachers tell people that they can be the best people possible, but without XYZ it is all for nothing. That mantra is like a broken record. Yet seldom do any teach, that one can have XYZ, but without fruit, it is also all for nothing. In the fear of preaching dead works, moral teaching is avoided. Yet, many others take a middle road, and teach that having the spirit is the answer, and right intent, to the expense of understanding or fruit. Why can we find no balance? I wish I could say 'why can't we find balance anymore', but, the more I studied, the more I realized that I can't point at any time when there was a good balance. Eventually, then, I had to take my focus off of what was missing in the church, and go find that balance on my own. This, I suspect, is what most of the seperated and isolated believers around here have done as well. Yet, those individualized pursuits have taken as many paths as there are people pursuing them. The diversity here on the Tree is a perfect case in point. Yet, historically, here on the Tree, we have gone the way that the rest of this cultural phenomenon has gone. Attacking one another rather than celebrating the diversity. In my personal perspective, in a discombobulated type of community as has emerged resultant of the nature of the times, added measures of leniency must be taken, focusing more on character than doctrines and traditions, while neither shunning those. But doing such creates a necessity to lay aside certain eschatological fears, such as the morphing of a one world religion, etc. Otherwise, we are going to be just little pockets and islands of people, all thinking we are the one true set of believers. Or realize we are part of a sea of sects, all vying to be the chosen. That doesn't seem like a great approach to me. In fact, to me it seems like with this kind of division and little attempt to find unity, a false teacher/leader that can bring it all together in his own right, with his strength of arguement and influence, will emerge. And outside of unity among people, the many will fall for that....just like they fell for all these movements and institutions that have brought on all this division.

Jews and anyone not Anglo-Saxon originating from Satan and Eve having sex is one such doctrine.

And it doesn't stop there as we all well know. Every person or movement that will not assess its own character with the same measures that it assesses others will fall into a mode of baseless hatred sooner or later.

[dmatic]

(A) friend of ours (Independent Baptist Preacher) came over one day and we were kicking some stuff around, and he read a verse. When he got through, I told him it doesn't say that. He said it sure does. I said no it doesn't. I asked him are you reading the KJV (I knew he was), and he replied 'course. I said so am I, and it doesn't say that. I told him to read it again, slowly, thinking about the words as he read them. When he got through he said, it doesn't say that. He said, I've read it that way for so many years, I never really read the words, just repeated the same mantra for the verse as before.
...

And the Southern Baptist have printed a gender neutral God Bible to conform to our culture. Makes me sick. Nickels, noses, and numbers.

Cary, Remember what the verse was? Just curious. Also, what does "Nickels, noses, and numbers." mean?

I think I hear you, Wiskey. At least, I think I hear your 'heart', about character, or 'fruit'. It seems you have discovered the Father's heart in all this. Congratulations! Some of the parables and doctrines of the Bible refer to God's interest in 'harvesting a crop' or fruit of the kingdom. I had a teacher many years ago who referring to his teacher said: "Character is more valuable to nature than wealth" (By "nature", I understood him to mean, God)

To simplify, May we just talk about love as being the character quality God is most interested in? If so, how is the character quality of love formed best in His creatures? Not sure turditions is the best way, but doctrine or teaching would seem to be very important. Even the doctrine of self examination being important.

I am coming to believe that doctrine is very important. We are warned not to be deceived. Warned of the leaven of the Pharisees, their "false" doctrine? warned of the many false teachers 'out there'. If actions are from thoughts, it would seem important to have right thoughts, in order to inspire right action. Knowing how to think about stuff, inspired by proper teaching or doctrine, is what helps, in my opinion, form good character. No?

[Sherree]

Well, WR, I have to say I agree with you, I think......Just look at you and I. You know as well as I do that we disagree on some issues. We still can talk and share with each other, though. Neither of us are perfect, and we don't have all the right answers, yet, but we are working towards that end, I believe. I'm not gonna try and pick apart your comments. I'll just say that we all need a good lesson in unity, especially where it concerns minor differences in the "Body of Christ".

I'm all for discussion on differing issues as long as we can agree to disagree, being civil about it, having respect for each other. Usually one side or the other can't do that, whether it's about religious topics or any other topic here on TTOL.

Then there are some who are so far off in left field that one has to "contend for the faith" here in The Chapel. It should still be done with respect.

[CaryC]

Cary, Remember what the verse was? Just curious. Also, what does "Nickels, noses, and numbers." mean?

Not the specific verse, do remember that it was in Romans though.

It's the measure, or formula, that organized denominations use to determine if they are successful.

Nickels: money
Noses: the number of people who attend each Sunday
Numbers: how they rate compared to other "churches"

With that formula Noah was a failure, preached 120 years and didn't have any more members than when he started-8. Not to mention poor ol' Jesus who only had 12 members, and one of them was a bad apple.

As compared to say Joe Olsteen, which church would you want to belong to? The successful one, or the failure?

[Wiskey Reb]

Well, WR, I have to say I agree with you, I think......Just look at you and I. You know as well as I do that we disagree on some issues. We still can talk and share with each other, though. Neither of us are perfect, and we don't have all the right answers, yet, but we are working towards that end, I believe. I'm not gonna try and pick apart your comments. I'll just say that we all need a good lesson in unity, especially where it concerns minor differences in the "Body of Christ".

I'm all for discussion on differing issues as long as we can agree to disagree, being civil about it, having respect for each other. Usually one side or the other can't do that, whether it's about religious topics or any other topic here on TTOL.

Then there are some who are so far off in left field that one has to "contend for the faith" here in The Chapel. It should still be done with respect.

Thanks Sherree. I pledge to do better....

[Wiskey Reb]

Cary, Remember what the verse was? Just curious. Also, what does "Nickels, noses, and numbers." mean?

I think I hear you, Wiskey. At least, I think I hear your 'heart', about character, or 'fruit'. It seems you have discovered the Father's heart in all this. Congratulations! Some of the parables and doctrines of the Bible refer to God's interest in 'harvesting a crop' or fruit of the kingdom. I had a teacher many years ago who referring to his teacher said: "Character is more valuable to nature than wealth" (By "nature", I understood him to mean, God)

To simplify, May we just talk about love as being the character quality God is most interested in? If so, how is the character quality of love formed best in His creatures? Not sure turditions is the best way, but doctrine or teaching would seem to be very important. Even the doctrine of self examination being important.

I am coming to believe that doctrine is very important. We are warned not to be deceived. Warned of the leaven of the Pharisees, their "false" doctrine? warned of the many false teachers 'out there'. If actions are from thoughts, it would seem important to have right thoughts, in order to inspire right action. Knowing how to think about stuff, inspired by proper teaching or doctrine, is what helps, in my opinion, form good character. No?

I never suggested doctrine is not important. But doctrinal agreement has a goal, and you stated it, building character. Yet, if you disagree with my doctrine, yet radiate with the character that doctrine is meant to bestow, then the goal is achieved anyway. Doctrine is a means to an end, not an end in itself. While there are certain doctrinal non-negotiables, one cannot expect that even those will be a catagory of universal agreement. Absolute truth and practical application cannot be expected to unify in this environment. Nor should we think our own to be overly sacrosanct. Too much rectification remains to be accomplished in all of us for sustaining such positions.