Creedal Christians, with a thanks to Jay for my title (Updated)
by Albert 1

70627500
# 1. 12/10/09 11:20 AM by John
thumbsup.gif Thanx for the food for spiritual thought.

A RC by birth and upbringing, I saw an inner light of amazing grace in the small "c" catholicism of universal tolerance and respect of others beliefs.

Too meek to feign any sort of superiority, I was too unorthodox, too unconventional, too contrary, to be a conforming compliant hypocrite in any one dimension. Still working on the RAZOR's EDGE, but I whole heartedly believe in KINDNESS, no matter how you define IT.

Thanx The Gandhi loving Amish "X" Marine Corpse of One Tin Soldier, on my own unique Odyssey after the Iliad of THE INFERNO.

Where "X" is the mathematical "variable" to be searched for in the complex equations of life.

Thanx again for making me think.

Editor's Note: That variable sure can make life worth sticking around for to see what comes next.



84782
# 2. 12/14/09 6:12 PM by Jim Mattison
Freeing ones self from dogma, whether instructed or self created, is pretty tricky business. Although non-creedal forms of analysis expand possibility...or maybe unchain posibility is a better description...I often find that concentrated justification of dogma, or a creed, helps define the contradictions, gaps, and illogical positions of my own thoughts that I otherwise am unaware of. I would have to say my approach to spirituality is more mystical than creedal, but the creeds have at least laid a pathway so that by following them I come to realize where and why they go astray. I find it difficult to gain perspective without having a point of reference I guess.

Editor's Note: In omy own experience I have often immersed myself in creedal situations to better learn them.

My former philosophy courses were extremely creedal ye broad in scope. I learned a lot but found the point of truth where I had to leave that culture in deference to my own mystical nature.

As you have learned the poins of reference these creeds supply are extremely valuable to someone's own ability to form perspective.

They are like navigation buoys.

I recall you mention that your former wife was Jehovah's Witness.

That is one of the interesting creeds I have had a little contact with but couldnt imagine what your experience must have been like.



2325784
# 3. 6/24/12 11:55 AM by albert 1
Added comment by author:

If a Christian or for that matter any creedal person claims a creed they could at least be true to it rather than a walking example of hypocrisy.

Editor's Note: n.t.



3200606
# 4. 6/24/12 8:17 PM by Peter Lounsbury
All the creeds that I am aware of are reactions to heresy in that time. While the NT was being written the two big groups they were contending with were the Gnostics and those followers of The Way who were reverting back to their Jewish traditions and practices. The Gnostics weren't the same as mystics today, in fact they were a Christian sect that believed that the apparent duality of Jesus' nature as man and God was that the fact that he looked like a man was an illusion; they believed that Jesus was a spirit that could take human form but wasn't really a flesh and blood mortal man. The drift to Jewish tradition was probably due more to the fact that the early church existed within existing Jewish religious places of worship. Jesus was accepted in varying degrees of teacher (Rabbi), prophet, messiah and son of God, so the struggle against Judaism in the early church is not really what most think it is. It wasn't until Titus sacked Jerusalem and scattered both Jews and Christians alike that Christian assemblies started to appear.

The creeds started rolling around the time of Constantine as Christianity grew like wild fire in the Roman Empire, but the heretical movements by then were more powerful than a couple of groups that were drifting a bit to the left or right. The creeds established some of the under girding needed to establish the Trinity as a good example. The parts are there in a few places in the NT, but the case for the Trinity is not the slam dunk many theologians insist it is. Most of the weight and force behind cultural Churchianity in America are huge organizations that keep creeds up to date, react to books for the flock to warn them of the parts that could cost them their souls, write doctrines and papers on Calvin and Hobbes, I might have that one backwards though and at the end of the day it is scripture that all return to in their respective religions.

Editor's Note: You have made some very specific statements on the history of Christianity.

I wonder how mainstream your perspective is and how many sources you have utilized.

Whenever I see accusations of heresy or general condemnation of a specific aspect I wonder how controversial this perspective is.

I see a phrase that "something is not what many theologins think it is" and wonder what percentage might think the opposite.

The type history you relate is one I have a lot of material on that is being taught from non church sources that are not promoting any particular creed..

My suspician is that after you have read all the material you have received from all the sources you used you have formed some definite opinions that I have no way from discerning from that contained in your material.

I thank you for the synopsis of "Churchianity" and wonder if it is a dictionary word.

Who knows maybe you are becoming a mystic?

If I see it right you place the emphasis on Scripture that in my opinion has everything to do with how it is interpreted.

There does not seem to be the clarity of opinion out there that would indicate whose or what interpretation of any Scripture's source is considered the most accurate.

Still one can "read between the lines" using the power of discernment that in my opinion is guided by intellect that is itself guided by what some The Holy Spirit or "light of soul"

That Peter might be a good description of a mystic's practice but you might ask how uniform that might be.

Anyhow I find this comment most interesting and thank you for it.




include comments