Relativism in Christianity

[Dreadsox]

I guess a key question here is do you believe God can reveal himself to different people in different ways.

If you believe that God is the creator of ALL people, and the God of everything, then why would God offer to be "exclusive" to the wandering nomads of the Middle East.

Are we this biased as to believe that the creator of all did not participate in the rest of creation? God exclusively just spent time working on the Middle East?

Or is it possible God spent time with the other people as part of the creation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you believe that Baptism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the person being baptized and everything to do with the POWER of God, then it only makes sense that God chooses us, not us choosing God.

 

[Dreadsox]

If you treat the Bible as literature, then you have a strong argument here.

If you treat the Bible as a literally accurate book and ignore the fact that historical evidence demonstrates otherwise it stregnthens it?

 

[thacraic]

So sacrament Babptism is dependant on the person chosing to be Baptized?

Why are you even asking this when I answered it in my post?

I shared with you my views on baptism. What else can I say?

 

[thacraic]

I guess a key question here is do you believe God can reveal himself to different people in different ways.

If you believe that God is the creator of ALL people, and the God of everything, then why would God offer to be "exclusive" to the wandering nomads of the Middle East.

Are we this biased as to believe that the creator of all did not participate in the rest of creation? God exclusively just spent time working on the Middle East?

Or is it possible God spent time with the other people as part of the creation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you believe that Baptism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the person being baptized and everything to do with the POWER of God, then it only makes sense that God chooses us, not us choosing God.

No God did not just spend time working in the Middle East. That was the point of the Great Commission, go into all the world and preach the Gospel. From the Book of Mark chapter 16 :
15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

You really need to define baptism here. If you are speaking in terms of merely being dunked then that has everything to do with the person choosing to do that. If you are speaking in terms of being baptized in the Spirit then that is solely through the power of God. We are not baptized in our spirit but in His, and that occurrs once we have choosen to accept Him into our hearts. It is a fairly simple concept. Sorry you are having difficulty understanding it. Maybe it is how I have put it forth?

Carrie

 

[thacraic]

He was the way the truth and the life for the Jewish tradition. If Christ had walked into the middle of Africa and said those words they would not have meant diddly to them. In the context of Christ trying to reclaim the temple, the true intent of the "law" he is the way the truth and the life.

Well again that is the point of the Great Commission, to go and preach the Gospel to all the world including the middle of Africa where it would not have meant diddly.

Jesus did not speak of this in terms of reclaiming the temple! He was speaking to His disciples about who He is and what was going to happen. The chapter preceeding 14 deals with Jesus fortelling His betrayal, crucifixion etc. His disciples were understandably troubled by what He was saying so He told them not to worry, to trust him. From John 14:

5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

None of the text surrounding this passage make ANY mention of Jewish law. Jesus is talking about being with the Father again. Where you get that this is in regards to reclaiming the temple and meant ONLY for those following Jewish tradition is beyond me.

 

[nbcrusader]

If you believe that Baptism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the person being baptized and everything to do with the POWER of God, then it only makes sense that God chooses us, not us choosing God.

Baptism is only an external sign of an internal change. It is like wearing a wedding ring. Wearing a wedding ring doesn't make you married. A married person taking off a wedding ring doesn't make them unmarried.

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess a key question here is do you believe God can reveal himself to different people in different ways.

If you believe that God is the creator of ALL people, and the God of everything, then why would God offer to be "exclusive" to the wandering nomads of the Middle East.

Are we this biased as to believe that the creator of all did not participate in the rest of creation? God exclusively just spent time working on the Middle East?

Or is it possible God spent time with the other people as part of the creation.

Wow. Quite a few good questions.

1. I cannot say that God is limited in how He reveals Himself. At the same time, I cannot claim that God has revealed Himself to me in a way that is inconsistant with established revelation: the Bible. To say otherwise is create my own god.

2. God, in His Sovereignty, can pick and choose who He wants. The fact He picked the Hebrews does not limit Him in any way.

3. How do you get to this conclusion? God's overall plan is for all people. He elected to start with the Hebrews.

4. Romans 1:19-20 "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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."

 

[nbcrusader]

He was the way the truth and the life for the Jewish tradition. If Christ had walked into the middle of Africa and said those words they would not have meant diddly to them. In the context of Christ trying to reclaim the temple, the true intent of the "law" he is the way the truth and the life.

On what basis do you limit Jesus' words?

The exact same could be said of all the other commands that we want to follow - it was only for the Jewish tradition.

 

[Dreadsox]

Why are you even asking this when I answered it in my post?

I shared with you my views on baptism. What else can I say?

Maybe I wanted clarification...thanks for answering.

 

[Dreadsox]

Well again that is the point of the Great Commission, to go and preach the Gospel to all the world including the middle of Africa where it would not have meant diddly.

Jesus did not speak of this in terms of reclaiming the temple! He was speaking to His disciples about who He is and what was going to happen. The chapter preceeding 14 deals with Jesus fortelling His betrayal, crucifixion etc. His disciples were understandably troubled by what He was saying so He told them not to worry, to trust him. From John 14:

5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

None of the text surrounding this passage make ANY mention of Jewish law. Jesus is talking about being with the Father again. Where you get that this is in regards to reclaiming the temple and meant ONLY for those following Jewish tradition is beyond me.

If you think he was put to death for other reasons than the threat he presented to those in power in the temple, then we have a serious difference as to what was going on .

 

[Dreadsox]

Wow. Quite a few good questions.]

Thank you!

[Q]1. I cannot say that God is limited in how He reveals Himself. At the same time, I cannot claim that God has revealed Himself to me in a way that is inconsistant with established revelation: the Bible. To say otherwise is create my own god.[/Q]

So then if God were to reveal himself to a Native American in a way that is inconsistent with their Revelation, who is to say who is right? To them you have created your own God.

[Q]2. God, in His Sovereignty, can pick and choose who He wants. The fact He picked the Hebrews does not limit Him in any way.[/Q]

I agree with your first sentence. If God can pick and choose whom he wants, it has NOTHING to do with us. It has to do with God. The fact that we cling to a theism that was produced in an ancient culture that saw the world differently most certainly does limit us.

[Q]3. How do you get to this conclusion? God's overall plan is for all people. He elected to start with the Hebrews.[/Q]

Maybe he didn't. Maybe he elected to start with human beings. Maybe the Hebrews who wrote the book thought they were chosen, thus affecting the theism that has evolved. Maybe it is time to look at the book from the standpoint of humanity.

If God created humanity, all of it, then why would God pick one race over another? If you believe God loves all of us, it would make sense that God was not out to show favoritism to the Hebrews? Maybe because the Hebrews wrote the book?

 

[Dreadsox]

On what basis do you limit Jesus' words?

The exact same could be said of all the other commands that we want to follow - it was only for the Jewish tradition.

Commands and codes of laws were givento other people around the world. Every culture has its codes and laws and culture. Maybe there is a commonality in the revelation of these.

 

[Dreadsox]

AS for Baptism, I completely disagree with any notion that man has anything at all do do with the power of the sacrament.

I have reasons for questioning about Baptism, because if you believe that the power of Baptism comes from God then you might believe as I do, that God is not here for one select group of people. God chose to create humanity. God chose us.

How does this relate to this thread? I asked questions about God the creator. God chose to create everything, including people who are not Jewish or Christian. While they may not be a part of the Christian/Jewish tradition, they are still Gods people, and no act of rejection of God can change that. God does not abandon. Much like Baptism, God has the power, not man.

 

[nbcrusader]

I agree with your first sentence. If God can pick and choose whom he wants, it has NOTHING to do with us. It has to do with God. The fact that we cling to a theism that was produced in an ancient culture that saw the world differently most certainly does limit us.

Perhaps God does intend on limiting us.

[Q]3. How do you get to this conclusion? God's overall plan is for all people. He elected to start with the Hebrews.[/Q]

Maybe he didn't. Maybe he elected to start with human beings. Maybe the Hebrews who wrote the book thought they were chosen, thus affecting the theism that has evolved. Maybe it is time to look at the book from the standpoint of humanity.

If God created humanity, all of it, then why would God pick one race over another? If you believe God loves all of us, it would make sense that God was not out to show favoritism to the Hebrews? Maybe because the Hebrews wrote the book? [/B][/QUOTE]

It was unfair to Esau and Ishmael. But that is our concept of fairness. For God, He didn't have to pick anybody.

And if we say Hebrews wrote the Bible (or practically all of it), why, as Gentiles, hold to any of it? If we only use portions of Scripture, not as authoritative, but to support our own notions of what makes a "good person", then we fall to a 'might makes right' (or the loudest group) form of religion.

Or why would a Hebrew writer say that God loves all of us?

 

[thacraic]

Maybe I wanted clarification...thanks for answering.

You're welcome.

 

[nbcrusader]

Commands and codes of laws were givento other people around the world. Every culture has its codes and laws and culture. Maybe there is a commonality in the revelation of these.

Given to? Or made?

Are you forwarding a natural law position?

 

[thacraic]

If you think he was put to death for other reasons than the threat he presented to those in power in the temple, then we have a serious difference as to what was going on .

Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life. The crucifixion was the means by which His death came about, which is why I say, WE all killed Christ, not just His contemporaries in the Sanhedrin Council.

But if you honestly think that Jesus was telling His deciples that He is the way, truth and life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him is in reference to the temple and not about a personal relationship with God, then yes we are coming at if from two entirely different perspectives.

 

[Dreadsox]

You're welcome.

Am I missing something? You never answered my request for clarification...

 

[Dreadsox]

Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life. The crucifixion was the means by which His death came about, which is why I say, WE all killed Christ, not just His contemporaries in the Sanhedrin Council.

But if you honestly think that Jesus was telling His deciples that He is the way, truth and life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him is in reference to the temple and not about a personal relationship with God, then yes we are coming at if from two entirely different perspectives.

Up until today, I felt that our debates were plesant. I am pretty much through.

There is the spiritual aspect of the Christ story, and there is the historical fact that they never would have put him to death were he not threat to the phsical world in which we live.

I will concede that one verse for the sake of peace here the verse you are clinging to was not about the temple. Never claimed it did, my argument had to do with a more global view of the reality of the physical, rather than the spiritual.

 

[Dreadsox]

Given to? Or made?

Are you forwarding a natural law position?

Depends....

To the person whose culture the law came from it is given.
To the person looking at the other culture it is not.

 

[Dreadsox]

It is a fairly simple concept. Sorry you are having difficulty understanding it. Maybe it is how I have put it forth?

Carrie

Sorry, I missed this explination.

It must be to difficult for me like finding posts.

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

This Spong guy is really interesting. I've only read a couple of random quotes of his, and the back of one of his books (can't remember which one), so the stuff quoted in this thread is by far the most I've ever heard from him.

He seems to be very sharp, and seems to have worked hard to take a fresh look at how we think about and talk about God.

What baffles me is that he has any interest in Christianity. Again this only based on what I've seen quoted in this thread. He makes it quite clear that Bible is drenched in theism, which he fully rejects. Thus, I don't see how the bible is of any significant use to him in his search to understand God. Thus, I don't understand why a man named Jesus of Nazareth (whose words and actions are recorded in the entirely theistic bible) would be central to his understanding of God. Spong even refers to himself as a "disciple" of this man who we only know through a theistic book. The very words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, contradict many of Spong's theses. For example:

[Q]10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.[/Q]

I like this one.

When Jesus prayed, he addressed God as "our father" (thus a theistic deity), and made a request for that him to act in human history in a particular way (give us our daily bread today). Granted, Jesus may not have actually said this, or any of the many other statements attributed to him in which he speaks of God as a heavenly power relating to human beings as a parent relates to a child. Theistic writers of Hebrew decent may have chosen to attribute those statements to Jesus to further validate their theistic understanding of God. But that is what we know of Jesus of Nazareth.

So why does Spong think Jesus reveals anything of God to us? I understand that he sees God in other humans, but how can he trust the biblical account that shows him God in Jesus of Nazareth?

Am I rambling? It's just that I'm very interested in some of what Spong says, such as:

Jesus lived so fully that he revealed the Source of Life. He loved so completely that he revealed the Source of Love. He was so completely true to his own being in the way he lived out his own humanity that people saw in him the very Ground of all Being.

But I don't understand how Spong has any sense for how Jesus lived, or how Jesus loved, or how true he was, since our knowledge of his life comes through the theistic interpretation of the bibilical authors.

thoughts?

 

[thacraic]

AS for Baptism, I completely disagree with any notion that man has anything at all do do with the power of the sacrament.

I have reasons for questioning about Baptism, because if you believe that the power of Baptism comes from God then you might believe as I do, that God is not here for one select group of people. God chose to create humanity. God chose us.

How does this relate to this thread? I asked questions about God the creator. God chose to create everything, including people who are not Jewish or Christian. While they may not be a part of the Christian/Jewish tradition, they are still Gods people, and no act of rejection of God can change that. God does not abandon. Much like Baptism, God has the power, not man.

Being baptized in water a very powerful experience, and the power of God is evident in that act, that is for certain. The fact that a believer is showing an act of obedience to the God they now know and love is an example of that Power. That God touched a person's heart with the Truth and they responded by accpeting it is an example of that Power. These are examples of the power of transformation, which is the true power of baptism - the baptism of the Spirit. This occurs the moment someone accepts Christ as their savoir. That Baptism has nothing at all to do with man. That is 100% God all the way.

Do you think that person HAS to be baptized in water in order to be saved?

 

[thacraic]

Am I missing something? You never answered my request for clarification...

Huh?? How many ways can I clarify what I am saying? I have stated twice, no three times now, what baptism is. What am I missing?

 

[thacraic]

Sorry, I missed this explination.

It must be to difficult for me like finding posts.

Huh? again ... sorry...

I was asking you if the manner in which I was wording what I was saying was unclear.....

 

[thacraic]

Up until today, I felt that our debates were plesant. I am pretty much through.

There is the spiritual aspect of the Christ story, and there is the historical fact that they never would have put him to death were he not threat to the phsical world in which we live.

I will concede that one verse for the sake of peace here the verse you are clinging to was not about the temple. Never claimed it did, my argument had to do with a more global view of the reality of the physical, rather than the spiritual.

How was my reply not pleasant?

At any rate, the global view of reality is very much wrapped up in the spiritual view. That is why what Jesus said to his disciples transcends borders and time, which is why I will continue clinging to it.

 

[BVS]

Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life.

See this in not what Dreadsox asked. This is the spiritual side of the story, but it's not why he was put to death. You are still seeing this only through the Biblical aspect to which you were taught.

This whole thread has lost sight of what the true intent was.

No one has shown me the "relativism" in Christianity today. You show a few views of one person, but no one has shown me how churches today are "straying".

And to the people claiming such you aren't seeing the irony to which your church experience is different than those before you. I mean this thread has gone on for several pages and no one has shown anything relative to the original intent of the thread.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think there are plenty of posts that demonstrate that Scriptural interpretive methods can and do lead to a relativist approach in Christianity.

 

[thacraic]

See this in not what Dreadsox asked. This is the spiritual side of the story, but it's not why he was put to death. You are still seeing this only through the Biblical aspect to which you were taught.

This whole thread has lost sight of what the true intent was.

No one has shown me the "relativism" in Christianity today. You show a few views of one person, but no one has shown me how churches today are "straying".

And to the people claiming such you aren't seeing the irony to which your church experience is different than those before you. I mean this thread has gone on for several pages and no one has shown anything relative to the original intent of the thread.

Ok I noticed when you quoted that BVS you cut out the remainder of the statment. This is it as i orginally phrased it....

"Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life. The crucifixion was the means by which His death came about, which is why I say, WE all killed Christ, not just His contemporaries in the Sanhedrin Council."

In that statement I address both the spiritual side of the crucifixion as well as the historical side. The Sanhedrin Counil were those who called for the crucifixion of Christ. Jesus was a threat to these people because He was saying He was everything that prophecy foretold. These people weren't keen on it because they wanted a real king, a politcal figure of this world to do their bidding against Rome. Jesus did not fit their ideal of what/who Messiah was and that is what led to His being killed. That is the historical aspect of it (the one I was taught and have read about as well.)

Jesus had to be killed, that was the entire point of His even coming to earth in the first place. To imply that He would not have been killed if He would have kept His mouth shut in regards to Jewish law is nonsense. Had he kept His mouth shut and just said a bunch of neat things to inspire people, He would not have been Messiah, He would have been Siddhartha Gautama, et al.

The reason this even came up, was because of my reference to Jesus stating that He is the way, the truth and the life in my response to someone else in a different post. The point I was making was that Jesus did not say He is A way or A truth or A life, you can get to the Father by me if you chose but there are many other opitions. He said THE and NO ONE but BY ME. Dreadsox went on to say that, that is not what Jesus was referring to. He said that it was to do with following Jewish tradition and the law and made reference to something about reclaiming the temple. So that is how it got sidetracked.

How is this an example of realitivism? Many churches and Christians are going against that very statement Jesus made. I see evidence of that here in this forum for starters. Some people that I talk to offline hold this view. Some people in my church hold this view. It is realitivism at its core. To say that you can say Jesus is just one viable means by which one can be enlightened or know God or live a good life then that is saying the Truth of Christ is only relative to those who believe it. That goes against everything Christ taught. If that isn't realitivism what is it?

Take care,

Carrie

 

[BVS]

Ok I noticed when you quoted that BVS you cut out the remainder of the statment. This is it as i orginally phrased it....

"Oh I know why He was put to death. He was put to death so that we may have life. The crucifixion was the means by which His death came about, which is why I say, WE all killed Christ, not just His contemporaries in the Sanhedrin Council."

In that statement I address both the spiritual side of the crucifixion as well as the historical side. The Sanhedrin Counil were those who called for the crucifixion of Christ. Jesus was a threat to these people because He was saying He was everything that prophecy foretold. These people weren't keen on it because they wanted a real king, a politcal figure of this world to do their bidding against Rome. Jesus did not fit their ideal of what/who Messiah was and that is what led to His being killed. That is the historical aspect of it (the one I was taught and have read about as well.)

Jesus had to be killed, that was the entire point of His even coming to earth in the first place. To imply that He would not have been killed if He would have kept His mouth shut in regards to Jewish law is nonsense. Had he kept His mouth shut and just said a bunch of neat things to inspire people, He would not have been Messiah, He would have been Siddhartha Gautama, et al.

The reason this even came up, was because of my reference to Jesus stating that He is the way, the truth and the life in my response to someone else in a different post. The point I was making was that Jesus did not say He is A way or A truth or A life, you can get to the Father by me if you chose but there are many other opitions. He said THE and NO ONE but BY ME. Dreadsox went on to say that, that is not what Jesus was referring to. He said that it was to do with following Jewish tradition and the law and made reference to something about reclaiming the temple. So that is how it got sidetracked.

How is this an example of realitivism? Many churches and Christians are going against that very statement Jesus made. I see evidence of that here in this forum for starters. Some people that I talk to offline hold this view. Some people in my church hold this view. It is realitivism at its core. To say that you can say Jesus is just one viable means by which one can be enlightened or know God or live a good life then that is saying the Truth of Christ is only relative to those who believe it. That goes against everything Christ taught. If that isn't realitivism what is it?

Take care,

Carrie

Thank you for being clearer on why Christ was killed, but I didn't need the history lesson of why this got sidetracked. I understood that part.

See you are still quoting only a few individuals. You are not showing me how Churches are doing so. This is the distinction I wanted you to make. You started this by saying relitivism in Christianity in the very broad sense, but now you are just showing a few individuals insight. You still haven't showed me any examples in the very broad sense.

Now having said that let me ask you something. This is something I ask everyone who brings this exact piece of scripture up and yet no one has given me an answer that works. Two things. One; if he is the only way, what about those that by geography or whatever never even heard of Christ? And two; he say through me, now Christ has already died for our sins, he has taken the burden of the world's sins. Now what does through me mean? Does it mean we have to have a personal relationship with Christ? Or has the path been layed? For example black people today don't neccasarily need to know Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks to benefit from the sacrifice they made.