Protestantism

» pink101 - Magic pill

In response to Magic pill posted by Migisi:

.
If foundational Christian beliefs are the cure-all, these third-world countries should be Eden on Earth, misery-free zones.
.
Actually, you are raising the question, on exactly what "foundational Christian beliefs" is it that you mean to put our focus? The ones that Jesus taught or the ones the churches teach?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brother_Jones - An Annoying Habit

In response to An Annoying Habit posted by pink101:

But, perhaps I'm the presumptuous one here. Maybe you have more to say about that. So, will you explain your comment here?

Certainly, I'll try. Hutson Smith takes great pains to develop the idea that liberals such as yourself have abandoned the idea of the Atonement of Christ in droves. You reject the resurrection of Christ and the virgin birth. So does Smith. Alrighty then. That seems to make sense about what folk like you say. And I do somehow agree with Smith about liberals being unable to reach God through their own brand of personal responsibility.

He goes on to develop the idea that a culture that abandons the spiritual implications of what Jesus did symbolically on the Cross, ala redemption and grace, simply fall back on secular naturalism and all hell breaks loose.

Smith is arguing in his new book that the symbol of Christ is justified in and of itself in carrying enough weight to retain Christians in Christianity because the message of redemption and grace cannot be replaced with vacant self help religion that is nameless and godless. I don't buy into his stuff, but he does seem to have his finger on the pulse of guys like you.

the oldtimer.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Arrogant and Annoying

In response to An Annoying Habit posted by Brother_Jones:
.
I don't want to get into ad-hominems; but, it would be nice if you were to stop explaining my inner thoughts before I explain them on my own. I understand your interest in making your points.
.

.
For example, you accusation that I am a liberal. Maybe you are the one who can be seen more as the liberal if the meaning of it is to drift away from original teachings. Jesus did teach individual responsibility, did he not?
.
It is an interesting point of our present time that we stand on certain deep frames regarding the issues we're discussing. The very word, liberal, is deeply set to mean persons that have drifted away from time honored values and who has loose ideas about reality. So, when we identify someone as a liberal, that automatically conjures up a vision of some weak spined person who is, more or less, up for the grabs of what ever is some popular deviation of the moment.
.
But, I think you're on track as far as looking for clues to understand how we develop morality.
.
Generally, I am thinking denominationally challenged people come to the table with such a strong bias of what is and is not true that it is almost impossible to have a decent look see at the facts with them.
.
For you to go against your dogmatic view of reality means you would almost lose your grasp on reality. In fact, you might.
.
Sometimes, such a strong view of reality is arrogant and annoying.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brother_Jones - Liberals

In response to Arrogant and Annoying posted by pink101:

Smith refers to the phrase or phase of liberal Christianity as those who reject the authority of scripture and the authority of the Church. I suppose the last group bothers him the most because he already assumes that most normal, modern Christians like himself reject the scriptures, but have some repect for some sort of church authority. Obviously, those who have stopped going to Church fall into a category that probably shouldn't fit into the category as liberal. Maybe a term like Independent of any beliefs should be noted of those who continue to call themselves Christians until such folks gravitate toward some sort of group that determines whether any effect of Christ is still in existence.

the oldtimer.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Magic pill

In response to Magic pill posted by pink101:

.
on exactly what "foundational Christian beliefs" is it that you mean to put our focus? The ones that Jesus taught or the ones the churches teach?
.
Maybe Jones can answer which of the two (or some kind of combo) Smith was referring to, since he read the book?

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brother_Jones - Magic pill

In response to Magic pill posted by Migisi:

on exactly what "foundational Christian beliefs" is it that you mean to put our focus? The ones that Jesus taught or the ones the churches teach?

I'll get off this book and back to the bible. I guess you will need to read Smith to see all of his criticisms toward the conservative side. He does make some good points about churches igoring the teachings and message of Jesus. That would be his strong suite in the book. He wants to see Christians put their life on the line for the message of Christ and not take too seriously the deity of Christ. I don't think too many folk would argue that is the dogma of liberal Christianity. Hence the soul of Christianity being to accept Jesus in that symbolic sense of being very questionable history but a good tale nonetheless, and a necessary message. I'm finished with Hutson Smith unless there is some more discussion about him. He could just be my little imaginary friend for all you guys know about him. lol.

the oldtimer.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Duirkeim's View On Christianity

In response to Magic pill posted by Brother_Jones:
.
I'm considering a post explaining Durkheim's view of Christianity; but, so far, I'm not sure where to put it.
.
I think Durkheim lays it out better than any one I've ever read.l
.
It might be best in the What Is A Christian thread.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Duirkeim's View On Christianity

In response to Duirkeim's View On Christianity posted by pink101:
.
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)
.
http://www.emiledurkheim.com/
.
Sociology is the study of man and his groups. As such, it takes no position one way or the other promoting one life style or the other; instead, its scholars seek understanding about our relationships with each other.
.
Emile Durkheim is the father of Sociology--its thought and study. In one of his papers, he defines Christianity in the following way:
.
"The merits of Christianity are praised and we are discreetly invited to embrace them. But are we to ignore the fact that the originality of Christianity consisted precisely in a remarkable development of the individualistic spirit? Whereas the religion of the ancient city-state was quite entirely made of external practices, form which the spiritual was absent. Christianity demonstrated in its inner faith, in the personal conviction of the individual, the essential condition of piety. First, it taught that the moral value of acts had to be measured according to the intention, a preeminently inward thing which by its very nature escapes all external judgments and which only the agent could competently appraise. The very center of moral life was thus transported from the external to the internal, and the individual was thus elevated to be sovereign judge of his own conduct, accountable only to himself and to his God. Finally, in consummating the definitive separation of the spiritual and the temporal, in abandoning the world to disputes of men. Christ delivered it at once to science and to free inquiry. This explains the rapid progress made for the scientific spirit from the day when Christian societies were established. Individualism should not, then, be denounced as the enemy which must be combated at any cost."
.
----------------
.
The above was copied from Page 86 in Readings in Social Theory; fourth edition; edited with introduction by James Farganis, Vassar College--New School University; McGraw Hill; Copyright 2004, The Free Press.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Duirkeim's View On Christianity

In response to Duirkeim's View On Christianity posted by pink101:

You and Durkheim appear to be elevating individualism as an end unto itself. This is not the spirit of Christianity - not now and not at its origin. Individualism is a MEANS to an end - and that END is a RELATIONSIP with God.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Duirkeim's View On Christianity

In response to Duirkeim's View On Christianity posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Your comment is well taken.
.
I pretty much agree with it.
.
The question gets to be whether the individual is able to be the judge of that relationship or if some others can do the judging?
.
Wouldn't you say so?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds