No individual Christian gets to make the rules

Rcofield

You are one of God's many, many spokesmen. If you care to preach to me, personally, in God's voice, that is your choice. However, I hear just you speaking, and not God.

Someone like me should not post on a religious blog because it is just for conservative Christians, like you. Thank you, once again, for your fresh new ideas.

I am learning a lot from you.

Daniel,

You state: "You wiggle out of the label of snob, by pinning it on God. So far, you have not said anything that I have not heard many, many times before, and it does not get any less obnoxious for hearing it for the hundredth or the thousandth time."

Perhaps posting your opinions on religious blogs is not the best place to go if you do not want to be confronted by the Christian worldview and the Bible?

RCofield

You wiggle out of the label of snob, by pinning it on God. So far, you have not said anything that I have not heard many, many times before, and it does not get any less obnoxious for hearing it for the hundredth or the thousandth time.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

My post obviously stung you a bit. I only wish you understood that it was not I who stung you but the Word of the Living God.

Rcofield

Perhaps I have a more severe conception of knowledge than you have. You seem to know a lot of things that I don't know, and you seem to think I am a pretty bad person because I don't know as much as you. This is a type of religious snobbishness that I have encountered many, many times before.

Rcofield

Science is the systematic study of the physical or material world through observation, experimentation, and reasoned analysis; and the resulting body of knowledge from this method of study. There are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. Science does not operate according to universal and fixed rules. Science has no evidence for its own philosophical precepts.

There is no philosophical or even scientific explanation for science. The existence of a physical world, and our ability to understand it, explains why science works.

The scientific method is fine for experimentation but it is inadequate in determining what is science.

Rcofeild

I am not going to engage in your childish argument about why my beliefs make me a wicked person. Do you think your comments to me are new or original? No they are not; they are old and tired.

I believe, like Shakespeare, that the world is a stage; that we are set here, and that in fact, we are in a sort of confinement, like a box which is our world of experience, and that all that we can know of this world is through the perceptions of our senses. But beyond this confinement, we are forbidden to know, ever, anything.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

You state: "Science is not the study of knowledge or how we acquire knowledge. While you are working on how we know anything, scientists continue to know more and more, even without knowing how."

Yes, the way science acquires knowledge is quite magical, isn't it? Good grief, man. Are you completely ignorant of the fact that the "scientific method" is the epistemological foundation of scientific inquiry??

You state: "Now, my thinking has gone beyond traditional Christian thought into what might be considered free thinking, yet I am not alienated from the Methodist Church."

Daniel, have you ever noticed that virtually all "free thinkers" think exactly alike on the issues of God, the bible, science, evolution, etc.? Has it ever occurred to you that such rebellion against God is not "free," but is the direct result of the "bondage" of sin whereby men wickedly and intentionally suppress the knowledge of God?

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Give me that,

You wrote that, "I am flabbergasted that someone could make such foolish statements." (Is that a Chrisian thing to say?) Given that intellectualls like Bertrand Russell and Christopher Hitchens have made this claim, to name a few, it is doubtful that it is foolish. Indeed, on page 492 of A History of Western Philosophy, in commnenting about the beginning of the modern era, Russell wrote that, "Then began the long fight between science and dogma, in which traditionalists fought a losing battle against the new knowledge." Even today, the Church fights against birth control, even though the increased use of birth contol, includng the morning after bill, would help to alleviate poverty and unwanted pregnancies, throughout the world.

As for your missionaires, you don't have to be a Christian to be charitable. However, I offer the following:

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible."

Jomo Kenyatta

You also wrote that, "There have been thousands and thousands of Catholic scientists that have made great breakthroughs and the Catholic Church hasn't 'fought' them 'all the way.'" Really? Thousands and thousands? And has any scientist made a breakthrough because he/she was Catholic or because he/she was a scientist? Indeed, it is hard to imagine any scientific breakthrough that could not be made without religion.

Rcofield

Epistimology is the philosophy that seeks to describe knowledge and how we acquire knowledge. But, it is all speculative. There is no consensus. Besides, it is very abstruse, far above the imaginings of most people. Yet people still know things, even without knowing what knowledge is or how we acquire it. In fact, the answer to the question "what is knowledge" is unknown. And we don't know how we know what we know.

But we still know things. Science is not the study of knowledge or how we acquire knowledge. While you are working on how we know anything, scientists continue to know more and more, even without knowing how.

I am flabbergasted that someone could make such foolish statements.

"Hasn't the Catholic church fought science all the way?" No. There have been a couple of celebrated and oft-cited examples of Catholic Church being in conflict with a couple of scientist. There have been thousands and thousands of Catholic scientists that have made great breakthroughs and the Catholic Church hasn't "fought" them "all the way."

"Haven't the likes of Copernicus, Spinoza, Descartes, Einstein, and on and on, done more to civilize the world." I don't know anyone from the church of Copernicus that went to poor countries to build schools and hospitals. There are a billion followers of Jesus who are giving billions of dollars in charity to help the oppressed and hungry. Don't know any followers of Descartes doing that.

BTW, I found this interesting tidbit about Descartes from Wikipedia: Stephen Gaukroger's biography of Descartes reports that "he had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth." After Descartes died in Sweden, Queen Christina abdicated her throne to convert to Roman Catholicism (Swedish law required a Protestant ruler). The only Roman Catholic she had prolonged contact with was Descartes, who was her personal tutor.

I would like just one answer: why do you need churches, priests, and an entire man - made bureaucracy in order to be a Christian, that is, to follow Christ? Are Christians so ignorant, naive, or simple-minded that they need to be led around by the nose? Can't they figure things out by themselves?

This happened when the Roman soldiers came to take Jesus away ...

" ... and a young man followed him with nothing but a linen cloth around his body, and they siezed him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked."

Mark chapter 14 verse 51

In Sunday School, I was taught that this young man was Mark.

RCofield

I was born a Methodist, baptized a Methodist, and raised to adulthood as a Methodist, in a conservative Christian family. Now, my thinking has gone beyond traditional Christian thought into what might be considered free thinking, yet I am not alienated from the Methodist Church.

This is because the Methodist Church does not have tests for belief and unbelief. The Methodist Church does not have a doctrine of wrong belief, heresy, or apostasy. The Methodist Church does not excommunicate its members.

The Methodist Church acknowledges freedom of speech, and does not seek to supress ideas or thoughts of its members. There is no requirement to submit ones inner will to a belief that one does not truly believe. There is, instead, engaged discussion.

There is no top-down requirement of belief. There is no President or Pope-like figure. I am not angry at the Methodist Church at all; I don't have a feeling of alienatnionl; and I do not know a single Methodist who does.

The Methodist Church acknowledges some ancient Catholic traditions, as being an aspect of the "older part of the Church." But it isn't all written out in detail, with every hair split 40 different ways. On modern controversial matters of concern, such as gay marriage, the Methodist has opinions which are acknowledged by all to be opinons.

You can look things up in a book and tell me all about the Methoidst Church and how I have it all wrong; I only have my religious heritage, and decades of personal and real-world expeience.

RLHolloway,

I understand that the gospels were written well after the death of Jesus by people who did not know him. Perhaps the people whom the gospels are named after, i.e., Matthew, Luke, John, Mark, or John, were also disciples of Christ, but this doesn't meant that those same individuals authored the gospels.

Do you dispute this?

So I assume that you think I and others like me will burn in hell for eternity?

Keithgold wrote:

"The Jesus you know of today is a construct, mythologized by the writers of the gospels, which were all written decades after Jesus's death (except for the parts that were added much later, like the golden rule). Neither Matthew, Luke, Mark, or John lived during Jesus's lifetime."

Matthew and John were both Disciples of Christ and were with him approximately 3 1/2 years while Christ taught and preach. Luke was a doctor that would have been alive and would have learned a lot from Peter and Luke would have traveled with Paul. Even Mark would most likely have been alive but might have only been a young boy. He is the only one of the above that might not have been alive during Christ's ministry.

Someone can try to trivialize the gospels but this does not alter the truth of the matter. Christ came to the here to die for my sins, your sins and everyone else’s sins as Keithgold wrote but it was not a small event but one that has dramatically changed the world. Christ will return someday and whether that day is a joyous occasion or one of weeping is a decision we alone can make. No Christian or any other person can change this fact for it has been foretold to us by the Creator.

Thank you for your comments about conforming our behavior to God's will leading to our ultimate joy. I believe its true though I rarely seem to accomplish it.

Givemethat,

A couple of more things. First, your quotations of scripture to prove your points are mere tautologies.

Second, you asked, "Is there any person in history more responsible for civilizing the human race?" How is this true? Didn't the middle ages - also known as the dark ages - coincide with the rise of Christianity? Hasn't the Catholic church fought science all the way? Haven't the likes of Copernicus, Spinoza, Descartes, Einstein, and on and on, done more to civilize the world.

Do you have any facts to support your claim?

GiveMeThat,

Jesus was an insignificant historical figure - in his time. I believe there is only one possible, and short, contempeoraneous reference to Jesus during his lifetime. Simply put, Jesus, if he existed at all, was not a big hit in his day.

The Jesus you know of today is a construct, mythologized by the writers of the gospels, which were all written decades after Jesus's death (except for the parts that were added much later, like the golden rule). Neither Matthew, Luke, Mark, or John lived during Jesus's lifetime.

Therefore, if you believe that god sent his son to die for man's sins about 2000 years ago following the immacualate concepetion and the virgin birth, and that Jesus performed very public miracles, and then rose from the dead, you also believe that, well, no one took much notice of such an incredible event.

Does that seem plausible to you?

Cal Thomas writes: As for "leaving Christianity," one should be reminded that no individual gets to make the rules, anymore than he (or she) can decide gravity is a bad idea that can't be lived with.

This is stupid. Gravity (and physics in general) is the one thing that cannot be argued with. Stand in front of a moving train and we can observe the very predictable results, which would be plain to all. Leaving Christianity is nothing like this. Much of the world gets along just fine without believing in Jesus or God or any other of the bunk surrounding those two concepts -- rules made up by men.

But when you try to leave those like Thomas try to scare people back by this what "about the afterlife" question. "If you don't accept Jesus you're going to burn in Hell!!!!" Cal Thomas's message here can be boiled down to "Don't think for yourself." Christianity is like a bad controlling relationship. Those who are in it really are unaware of how it screws up their minds by playing on their guilt feelings and insecurities. And those who do manage to break it off they are often scarred for life.

Personally, I have gone all the way and kicked God's sorry behind out of my life while retaining the teachings of Christ that make sense to me. God is bunk. If such a God described in the Bible were to exist, I would still not belive in him because such a wretched supremely selfish narcissistic entity does not deserve belief. The God in the Book of Job who destroys a good man's life just to prove a point to Satan is no better than Satan himself. It would all be funny if it weren't for so many people that take imaginary beings and Bronze Age fairy tales so seriously, and tragically waste the only lives they have away and drag down those around them by doing so.

GiveMeThat, so if Ieshua hadn't gotten a raw deal from the Romans, we would all be practicing human sacrifice?

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

Your posts are interesting, especially given that you have previously stated that you are a Methodist. I want to respond to our latest post by pointing out things you state and contrasting them with the Methodist Confession of Faith (1963). How do you square these statements with your denomination's confession of faith?

You state: “What does it mean to say "the church?" There are many separate churches.” and “The church being the body of Christ sounds good, but what does it mean? It is a plattitude.” and “it is all very well to dream of a church that may have existed 2,000 years ago...”

Consider these statements in light of your denominations statement on the Church:

Article V—The Church: We believe the Christian Church is the community of all true believers under the Lordship of Christ. We believe it is one, holy, apostolic and catholic. It is the redemptive fellowship in which the Word of God is preached by men divinely called, and the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's own appointment. Under the discipline of the Holy Spirit the Church exists for the maintenance of worship, the edification of believers and the redemption of the world.

You ask: “We should be holy. What does that mean? That is some sort mental cruise control plattitude. But that is not enough of anything to believe in.”

Your own confession of faith reads:

Article XI—Sanctification: We believe sanctification is the work of God's grace through the Word and the Spirit, by which those who have been born again are cleansed from sin in their thoughts, words and acts, and are enabled to live in accordance with God's will, and to strive for holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

You state: “It is all very well to read the Bible.” and then “But there are other books to read than the Bible. And there is a lot of wisdom to be had from them, however unwanted it may be.”

Consider:

Article IV—The Holy Bible: We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be made an article of faith nor is it to be taught as essential to salvation.

Many of the positions you postulate on these threads directly contradict the articles of faith of your denomination. Are you not familiar with your church's doctrinal positions? How do you reconcile this?

"...human civilization existed long before the birth or death of Ieshua."

I clearly said civilized, not civilization. Why are liberals so duplicitous?

The Mayan civilization or Hittite civilization or whatever existed a long time ago. They also sacrificed people. I, and perhaps a few more would consider this UNCIVILIZED. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, to pray for your enemies, rejected a eye for an eye (a practice still in effect in Islam). Read about Father Damien. There are countless more Christians like him. Look at the movie The End of the Spear. I said civilized.

GiveMeThat, human civilization existed long before the birth or death of Ieshua.

The fool says in his heart, there is no God. Psalms 14:1

"...or that god sent some insignificant historical figure to die on the cross for our sins, you only reveal your utmost credulity."

Jesus insignificant? Wow. Is there any person in history more responsible for civilizing the human race? Is there any person responsible for more charity work, even today? Who is insignificant? Alas...

Do not answer a fool according to his folly. Proverbs 26:4

Mr. Thomas wrote that, "God made the world and He made us. He gets to set the boundaries for human behavior." Such belief is one of the bases of religious oppression. Those who believe this also purport to know what god's rules are, and then seek temporal power to oppress the rest of us. The fact of the matter is that, even assuming there is a god, neither Mr. Thomas nor any other theist has the faintest idea of what this god's laws are. For those who really believe that god revealed himself and his rules in one place on earth, the Middle East, to illiterate figures like Mohammed, or fictional characters like Moses, or that god sent some insignificant historical figure to die on the cross for our sins, you only reveal your utmost credulity.

Mr Thomas lives in a World of his Own, a world of ignorance and hubris.

First, there are *hundreds* of Christian sects, each with its Own Rules.

Secondly, there have been about 40,000 "official" versions of God in human history, of which Mr Thomas may represent ONE.

The rules of WHICH of these gods should Ms Rice live by?

Mr Thomas's formulation makes NO sense in the world we *actually* live in.

The "pursuit of happiness" phrase in the Declaration of Independence is not so much about seeking happiness in our modern terms, but the right to own and protect your property. It does have a better ring to it than the right to own land, businesses and slaves.

""As for "leaving Christianity," one should be reminded that no individual gets to make the rules, anymore than he (or she) can decide gravity is a bad idea that can't be lived with.""

One can, however, realize that a man or religion who conflates his claimed *religious authority* with 'gravity' ...May be wrong or lying.

Christianity *isn't* gravity. If it was *gravity,* people wouldn't keep *falling out of it, would they?*

It's more like it's a sheepfold claiming its fences are the edge of the world and that the ground outside you can see, stand on, and walk away on... doesn't exist.

"" God made the world and He made us. He gets to set the boundaries for human behavior, ""

You pile assumptions on assumptions on arrogance, there, Rev. Thomas.

Especially when trying to address the fact that it's easy enough to see you ain't Jesus, never mind 'God,' never mind the shape of human goodness, or the universe.

What a shame when people experience "Christianity", but never meet and establish a relationship with Jesus. Dear Ms. Rice, You missed the point!

This is not intended to be mean or snarky or sarcastic, or spewing vitriol.

But what does it mean to say the church is the body of Christ? What does it mean to say "the church?" There are many separate churches. Many of them only regard themselves as the church. Many of them promote hostility towards rival churches. Some of them pretend that there are no differences. But there are.

The church being the body of Christ sounds good, but what does it mean? It is a plattitude. Are plattitudes good enough? Do we want just good enough?

We should be holy. What does that mean? That is some sort mental cruise control plattitude. But that is not enough of anything to believe in.

Happiness is just a sugar high? Meaning what? That happiness feels good? But that is why happiness is happy. I cannot imagine any kind of worthwhile belief system or even any worthwhile person who is against happiness.

In the Delcaration of Independence, it refers to " ... the pursuit of happiness ... " I suppose that is a a mistake? Because it is secular? Because it is humanist? Because is derives from an Anglo-French Enlightenment, and not from the old, old scriptures of Christianity?

It is all very well to read the Bible. And it is all very well to dream of a church that may have existed 2,000 years ago, but which has since risen to the pinnicle of power and wealth and has been brought low with violent civil war in which millions died, and which is now fractured and fragmented.

But there are other books to read than the Bible. And there is a lot of wisdom to be had from them, however unwanted it may be.

As much I as admire Cal Thomas, I disagree with his essay (in part). In particular, I disagree with Cal's going along with the attempted separation of Christianity from Christ and the assertion that "Christianity is a religious construct."

Christianity is the body of Christ. Yes, it is filled with imperfect people, both Cal and I would agree that God uses this body to do amazing works - the main work being turning hearts to Him. Jesus ministered and continues to minister to us in community. Paul speaks eloquently of the body of Christ in many places. "There are many members but one body...Can a foot tell the eyes, I have no need of you?..."

May our Good Lord bless you and your family, Cal.

This is what intolerant theocracy is made of.

But even if you are a Christian, what rules? There is a sort of consensus of rules that everybody in general goes by, unless they are rules dictated by church authority, which people obey or not, as they please. I know a typical Christian response to my criticism is that Christianity is not about rules. But that is what Cal said, and I am going by that in this argument.

He also said that God wants us to be "holy." I don't mean to be mean or snarky or sarcastic, or spewing vitriol or hate, but, I am not sure what he means when he says that. It sounds sort of good.

And he says happiness is like a sugar-high. Again, I don't mean to be mean or snarky or sarcastic, or spewing vitriol or hate, but, is it wrong to want happiness?

It just seems like any kind of natural human impulse for anything is in opposition to God, according to Cal.

Again, I don't mean to be mean or snarky or sarcastic, or spewing vitriol or hate, this essay seems a little childish.

Maybe that is just Cal and we should just get used to it. (Okay, a little snarkiness slipped out there ... sorry ... )

So according to Cal, everyone is bound by the rules of Christianity, whether or not they practice the religion.