Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

.0, Do Christians have independent thought?

Much to the dismay of many Christians, there's really quite a bit of
independent thought.

Why quote the Bible?  To some, the Bible is the source of supreme authority.
Thus, quoting the Bible supposedly buttresses whatever point the speaker is
trying to make.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .0
    
    You seem to be saying, between the lines, that if you quote scripture
    it demonstrates that you do not think for yourself.
    
    That conclusion is wrong.
    
    After thinking/meditating/studying, you agree with the scripture and
    then quote it....since the passage sums up the concept nicely.....
    is *that* then showing that you are *not* independent?
    
    Frankly, I can think of a much better way of asking for a discusion
    subject , then with the title you have picked.
    
    Try this one....." What do Christians do when their beliefs run counter
    to the Bibles teaching?"
    
    Marc H.

    >what are the real thought processes of Christians, what is Christian
    thinking....

    I think this is a good question.

    What is a real thought?  What is a Christian thought?

    I believe that real thoughts and Christian thoughts are the same thing. 
    What is real?  The Love of God is real.  The Love of God endures
    forever.  All else passes away in a cauldron of imagination, galaxies
    streaming away from one another, human bodies being born/growing old,
    things constantly changing in a fantastic kaleidoscope universe.

    Thoughts are real to the extent they contain Love.  Real thoughts are
    conscious, aware, in the present.  

    >why recitation/memorization of other's words are so important

    Sometimes other people say things so well, it's hard to improve on it. 
    We can build on the work of others.  But it is important to constantly
    check in with our hearts to make sure we're in harmony with the Word of
    God within us.

    Ruth

In .2  Marc wants to read between the lines.  Please don't.  If you do, then
these are your own thoughts.

In .1, and .3, Richard and Ruth, respectively, attempt to answer the topic
question.  Both of these replies interpret the topic questions in a way that I
did not intend.

Let me try to restate the three parts of the topic in a form that may be
clearer:

Question:

1)The original question is, "What are the real thought processes of
christians?"  By this I mean the process by which a christian thinks.  For
example a scientist uses the scientific process to think; Plato had definite
ideas on thinking; etc.  So by this question I am trying to stimulate
discussion on the process by which a person thinks once they have embraced
christianity.

2)By the question, "What is christian thinking?" I am asking for a definition
of the buzz phrase "Christian thinking."  I have heard this over and over by
professing christians.

3)By the question,"Why [are] recitation/memorization of other's words are so
important [to christians?]" I am trying to stimulate discussion on why it is
so important to recite another's thought and not think it through yourself.  
This has been a problem for certain sects of christianity who have applied a 
2000 year old quote to the present time and have not been independent in their
thinking, thus causing a problem (read strife, fear, hate, exclusiveness,
condemnation, etc.) in the present time.

In .1 and .3 the authors give excellent answers to this question. I would like
to have them expand on their answers to help discuss the follow-up to the
third question.  The follow-up question is, "Do christians like no-thought
answers provided by their bible?"  For example, instead of being
conscience and reasoning, and *then* speaking, they fall back on a
catchism/cliche which may sound nice (or even give the speaker an air of
authority) but is really a automaton response to a condition.  I would think
that christians would want to be very conscience since the basis of their
belief is that they wish to be of the same spirit as their god-head by an act
of free will (this implies conscience).

Aloha,
   Richard

    Well forget about sitting back on this one...christians have the same
    thought process as anyone else.  What do you think?   God goes in and
    rewires your brain when you accept His Son?  Sounds like you've been
    watching to many sci-fi movies!
    
    Please forgive me if I'm coming across a little strong.  You just hit a
    button.  In the TV "Reasonable Doubts" they made a statement similar to
    your "Do christians like no-thought answers provided by their bible?"
    You make it sounds like we're robots.  Like everything is completely
    decided for you already.  What a bogus presupposition!  Christians are
    just people like anyone else and we have the same thought process as
    anybody else.  It's Christ in us and the values we hold that make a 
    difference in the final outcome.  We analyze things.  We look for 
    proofs just like anyone else but at some point we decide there are no 
    more proofs and you either choose to believe or not believe.  It's a 
    constant choice.  It's not something that's over in a moment and the 
    rest of your life is a no-brainer.  My life is a constant choice of 
    submitting to God's authority.  You think that's easy?  Sometimes it 
    is and sometimes it isn't.  And I love that you think we just have 
    had no problem accepting anything we read.  Or that we automatically 
    just oppose anything a non-christians believes about.  Man...take the 
    issue of abortion.  I don't know how many times in my life I've change 
    my stance on abortion.  I've grown up.  I've seen more of life.  
    Studied more.  I came to my belief based on choices I've seen made and 
    on all the material I've read and you know what?  I came back to the 
    concept of life being invaluable and abortion be immoral.  Not because 
    the Bible just said it, but because I sought out for what was right.  
    That was a 10 year plus journey and you belittle it to just an 
    acceptance of words that I didn't think of!  
    
    If I sound offended maybe  it's because I am.  I'm not angry with you. 
    Quite the contrary actually.   I'm quite amused because I've seen this
    same question being echoed  through the airwaves and it makes me
    wonder...so much for your  independent thought!  ;^)  Maybe we should
    never teach anybody any of the knowledge that has been obtained
    throughout the centuries.  Maybe  they should have to think everything up
    all over again.  At least that way there would be truly original
    thought and maybe they wouldn't figure out how to make big weapons to
    hurt each other.  But you know... I've got to admire people who have
    scientific minds.  They are so much more practical and thoughtful than
    us simple-minded Christians.  Lets take evolutionists for example.
    I mean despite the fact that they never seen an ape evolve into a 
    man despite the fact that every "apeman" has been discredited by 
    scientific  proofs, and despite that fact that it founder, Darwin, 
    himself said that the fossil records are the biggest evidence against 
    this theory... the just keep holding on to their belief because, 
    because...hmmm... why do they anyway???  Hmmm...independent thought.
    Good topic.  Thanks.
    
    Jill

I don't think I have a clearly definable process when it comes to "Christian
thought."  I try to listen to the Spirit (What Ruth was talking about).  I
also weigh things against what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral;
ie, 1) Scripture, 2) Reason, 3) Tradition, and 4) Experience.  In formulating
a stance, I often talk with others, people whose spiritual outlook I know
and respect.  I also try to listen to those who are in disagreement.

I'm reminded of a United Methodist Pastor I had at one time.  Duane Averill
used to say, "I don't want any of you to leave your brains in the parking lot
when you come to church!!"

Much of the reason for emphasizing the authority of the Bible, I think, is
to keep Christians in line, to prevent deviation in doctrine.

But I also think there are some who find it very comforting to believe that
all the really important questions have long been satisfactorily answered.
It is succinctly put in the bumper sticker that says:  "God said it -
I believe it - And that's all there is to it!!"

Peace,
Richard

Richard,

	What a wonderful answers to .4 in .6.  I'm no expert (...and there was
much nodding of heads an laughter to what he said...) but the statements you
made...

	"Wesleyan Quadrilateral; ie, 1) Scripture, 2) Reason, 3) Tradition,
	 and 4) Experience.  In formulating a stance, I often talk with others,
	 people whose spiritual outlook I know and respect.  I also try to
	 listen to those who are in disagreement.

	"I'm reminded of a United Methodist Pastor I had at one time.  Duane
	 Averill used to say, 'I don't want any of you to leave your brains
	 in the parking lot when you come to church!!'"

seem to be missing from a perceived vocal portion of the "radical" (pardon to
all, but I just can't think of a better term at this nano-second) christian
community.  I experience angry reactions (as shown in .5) when questions of
independent thought come up in religious debate.  There have been particular
sects of christianity that believe in predestination (ergo where's the free
will) and so on, but that is and aside to the real point, which as I've tried to
fish-out with this topic, does God wish for reasoning, critiquing, free-willed,
people?  An easy answer would just be, "Yes." but, as in college, it's yes/no
and justify  8^) !

I really respect your statement "I also try to listen to those who are in
disagreement."  by the way!


Aloha,
	Richard

Jill,

	Peace.  There is no attack.  May the love of God heal the hurt and anger
you feel.

Aloha,
	Richard

I know it seems like Christians are a pretty homogeneous group.  And I must
confess that I tend to lump some factions together, perhaps to a degree
that's not fair or accurate.

Organizations such as Pat Robertson's "Christian Coalition," which has
connections with Lou Sheldon's "Traditional Values Coalition," which has
connections with Will Perkin's "Colorado for Family Values," could not
exist without a certain amount of homogeneity.

The United Methodist Church, on the other hand, tries to honor, even
celebrate, Christian plurality.

Richard

    Do Christians have independent thought?

    No.  Of course not.  Not when we are truly thinking.  In order to truly
    think, our minds must be filled with real thought.  Real thought occurs
    when our minds are joined with the Mind of Christ and when we are thus
    joined our minds are unified.  

    I think we have interdependent thought.

    Ruth

     re: .5  (Hi Jill)
     
        >> What do you think?   God goes in and rewires your brain when you
        >>accept His Son?
     
        Would this be a bad thing?  I know my brain could use some devine
        rewiring...In fact, I like this so much I think I'll add it to my
        end-of-day prayer for awhile.
     
        Seriously.  I like it.     :-)
     
        Thanks Ruth

    RE: basenote,
    
    			Well I'm afraid I have to go along with Jill on
    this one.  Yes, Christians have a "way" of living through the Bible but
    what this conference has made *VERY* clear is that within that very
    Book (Bible) there are a variety of thinking about its meaning.  Does
    that mean that Christians are not "saved" because they cannot agree on
    what exactly God is trying to say?  No.  It means that God has revealed
    only a portion of "his" truth....I like to think enough that I can
    handle.  
    
    			Another point is the teaching (Biblical) of free
    will.  By defination that means independent thought processes.  We can
    accept or reject, part or the whole, of the teachings of Christ.  Its
    your decision.  Most scholors believe that there is an element within
    every person that can recognize the truth when it is heard, so rather
    than "rewire", God chose to leave this decision to each individual.
    
    
    Dave

    Re: .12
    
    Agree....also, the points that Richard makes are excellent.
    
    This subject is not an easy one for notes. A discusion like this
    should be in person due to the fact that statements can be easily
    mis-interpreted.
    
    Marc H.

    I have just read and now I am rereading a book edited by Conrad Wright
    titled "Three Prophets of Liberal Christianity".  The book contains a
    major Sermon by Channing, Emerson, and Theodore Parker.  I thought all
    three Sermon's were excellent but Theodore Parker's was my favorite. 
    It was on the Permanent and Transient in Christianity.  Parker
    discussed all the individual "Christian" doctrines that humankind has
    fought about, and killed for from the first century on.  And as time
    went on what one century would fight and kill for another century would
    not be concerned about.  His message was that the permanent in
    Christianity was the love of the Divine and the love of our fellow
    human beings.  The Word that is spoken to our hearts.  Every Christian
    brings a different set of assumptions about what the Word is, where we
    find the Word, and how we interpret it.  The Truth, the Permanent is
    the deepest most enduring core.
    
    Patricia

Hello all,

A bit of a different twist to the question.

What do you do when your thoughts disagree with your interpretation of the bible?

I realize that there are probably almost as many interpretations as people, 
(after all, wars have been fought over differing opinions), but I would think 
that at some point you would find a passage that you couldn't agree with. How do
you then reconcile the passage?

Steve

.What do you do when your thoughts disagree with your interpretation of the bible?


 Since I accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God, I accept that the
 problem is mine, not the Bible's.  And through prayer and study I find
 the answer..it is I that must change, not God.




 Jim

    >What do you do when your thoughts disagree with your interpretation of
    >the bible?
    
    I had to re-read your question, Steve. :-)
    
    My thoughts don't disagree with the Bible.  My thoughts, in some
    instances, disagree with *others'* interpretation of the Bible.
    
    Richard
    

    There are many times when my thoughts disagree with the Bible.  Paul's
    writings about Gender, sexuality, and homosexuality are a few of those
    instances where I know that the Bible does not contain the Word of the
    Divine but the interpretation of the Divine Word through Paul's
    paradigm, prejudices, and fears.  In those cases I rely on my
    experience of Goddess/God within me and around me to know what is
    Goodness and truth.  I'm not specifically picking on Paul's writings
    but Paul did have a big ego and he is very clear about his opinions in
    his letters.  And if James did not always agree with him, why should I?

    Paul had disagreements with Peter and Barnabas, too.
    
    Richard
    

RE:             <<< Note 716.19 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

   .    Goodness and truth.  I'm not specifically picking on Paul's writings
    .but Paul did have a big ego and he is very clear about his opinions in
    .his letters.  And if James did not always agree with him, why should I?



  Paul's writings were recognized as being scripture (see 2 Peter 3:15,16)



 Jim

>  Paul's writings were recognized as being scripture (see 2 Peter 3:15,16)

But then, neither Paul nor Peter were present at the conference where
the NT canon was decided.

Richard

In some cases, then, as I understand it, your thoughts are 'constrained' by the
bible, ie. when a discrepancy occurs you continue working on it until you agree 
with the bible (.17; Jim).

In other cases, either you never have had a disagreement with or you have been
able to reconcile your interpretation of the bible to match your thoughts (.18; 
Richard).

Finally, in some cases you just 'ignore?' the offending bible passages based on
your own experiences (.19 Flanagan). 

I think those three responses pretty much cover the entire range possible :^)

I would submit that for the first case, your thoughts are fairly severly
constrained, which was somewhat of a premise of the base note. In the second case
the constraints are also present, but to a lesser extent. In the third case, 
there really aren't any.

In an earlier note Jill was somewhat annoyed (I apologize if I mis-interpreted
your response) to the position that Christians and non-christians do not think
alike. I would suggest that if you believe as Jim does (.17) than your thought
process are different from mine. Although I have the normal load of baggage 
(pre-conceptions, prejuidices, etc.) I try very hard to keep an open mind on any
subject. In the case where you use the bible as the final word on issues, it 
seems to me that you cannot have a truly open mind on that particular issue.

Steve

    yeah Steve (re .23), but I still want my brain debugged....
    
    Ruth
    
    

It seems to me that anytime you reach any conclusion whatsoever,
you no longer have an open mind as it is usually defined in this
conference.  Of course, you can still have some "openness" if
you are later willing to admit that the conclusion you have come
to is wrong.

It seems to me that the focus of being open is very much off the
mark.  The focus should be on finding and HOLDING ONTO that which
is true.

Which is the greater good?  Being open?  Or finding and cherishing
truth?  Certainly being open has its place.  But adhering to truth
is always in fashion, or so it seems to me.


The regurgitation that those who have come to a decision that the
Bible is indeed true are close-minded and in need of a crutch does
not surprise me.  It is indeed unfortunate that our open-minded
friends have continually spout this cannot (or will not) acknowledge
the obvious truth that many who accept the Bible's claim of truth
and base their life on it are very knowledgable, have spent a great
deal of time contemplating and researching the issues and are in
no more in need of a crutch than those who make this silly claim.
All of which is not to say that there are not some who quite
properly do fit the criteria proposed.

Memorizing that which is true helps in several ways:

  1)  helps you to distinguish between truth and falsehood
  2)  helps you to choose obedience over disobedience
  3)  keeps your attitude and heart aligned with God

Likewise, ignoring that which is true or claiming it is
false leads you away from God.

Collis

Yes, Christians have independent thought.  That's one of
the reasons that God made each of us different from the
other.  However, God does hope that we each will choose to
love and follow Him and, as we do, we will be conformed
into His likeness (including His thinking).  Finally, a
reply both conservatives and liberals can (probably :-) )
agree with!

    Hi Collis!
    
    Nice to hear from you...
    
    Ruth
    

re:        <<< Note 716.23 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Theologically Impaired" >>>
                                -< Constraints >-

>In some cases, then, as I understand it, your thoughts are 'constrained' by the
>bible, ie. when a discrepancy occurs you continue working on it until you agree 
>with the bible (.17; Jim).


>I would submit that for the first case, your thoughts are fairly severly
>constrained, which was somewhat of a premise of the base note. In the second case


Well, I guess it must be all the "treatments" I get on Sundays and Wednesdays, 
eh?

On a serious note, as has been noted by Jill and later by Collis, I did not 
arrive at my conclusions on the truth of the Bible easily.  Since that time
the truths of the Bible have been made evident to me over and over again..not
once has it been wrong.  I'll take my "severely constrained " thoughts based
on Biblical truths over what anybody else has to offer any day, thank you.






 Jim

    Welcome back, Collis.
    
    	Good to hear from you...
    
    		hear from you...
    
    			hear from you...
    
    Greetings, Derek.

    Re: .25
    
    Thanks for your reply.
    
    Marc H.

    Steve...Constraining...hmmm.  Well, let me try to give you an analogy.
    
    It's like working for DEC with a lot better benefits!   While you're
    here, you choose how you will act.  DEC has certain guidelines about
    that, but nonetheless you choose.  You choose to conform or not.  By
    not conforming you choose the consequences that come along with that
    and ultimately you choose whether to stay here or not.  I'd say that
    being a Christian is alot like that...we choose moment by moment
    whether we will conform to our Lord's will or our own and ultimately if
    we will follow Him at all. So I don't consider that any more
    constraining than an atheist trying to explain away what is obviously
    God's handiwork.  That's rather constraining don't you think?  To just
    rule out the existence of God?
    
    Ruth, somedays I would defining like to go the debugging route.  But I
    guess glory is coming soon enough and I will. :-)
    
    Jill

Collis, welcome back, even for a 'flit' :^)

re .25

>It seems to me that anytime you reach any conclusion whatsoever,
>you no longer have an open mind as it is usually defined in this
>conference.  Of course, you can still have some "openness" if
>you are later willing to admit that the conclusion you have come
>to is wrong.

I agree that people can't walk around with a fully open mind all of the time (and
remain sane), I was pointing more toward the second definition. I believe that I
am always open to examining any of my beliefs based on new information, or a new
argument. If you believe in the inerrancy of the bible, however, and are not 
willing to even entertain new arguments or view new facts, and indeed must 
reconcile all known arguments against the book your thinking is still 
constrained.

>It seems to me that the focus of being open is very much off the
>mark.  The focus should be on finding and HOLDING ONTO that which
>is true.

>Which is the greater good?  Being open?  Or finding and cherishing
>truth?  Certainly being open has its place.  But adhering to truth
>is always in fashion, or so it seems to me.

Finding the 'one' truth and holding to it no matter what the evidence against it
may be goes beyond being constrained, that IS being close minded. There have 
been many truths throughout the ages that have been proven wrong. Clinging to the
once inviolate truth (with a religious basis) that the sun revolves around the
earth would be rather silly in light of today's knowledge.

>The regurgitation that those who have come to a decision that the
>Bible is indeed true are close-minded and in need of a crutch does
>not surprise me.

Regurgitation? I never claimed in the first note that
it anyone's mind was closed, although in your example of holding on to the
truth I would say that. My choice and use of constrained was deliberate and
meant to avoid close minded, which means something very different to me. I also
never said, or implied, or meant that you or anyone else used the bible for a 
crutch.

>It is indeed unfortunate that our open-minded
>friends have continually spout this cannot (or will not) acknowledge
>the obvious truth that many who accept the Bible's claim of truth
>and base their life on it are very knowledgable, have spent a great
>deal of time contemplating and researching the issues and are in
>no more in need of a crutch than those who make this silly claim.
>All of which is not to say that there are not some who quite
>properly do fit the criteria proposed.

Spout? (Did I touch some sort of nerve here)? I would never argue that some that
accept the bible are not knowledgable. Some of the greatest minds in history
were devout believers in one religion or another. Again, I never claimed you 
needed or used the bible as a crutch. All I claimed was that if you accept the
bible as the absolute final word you DO constrain your thoughts and conclusions
to those which fit what is found in the book. 

    What is a "christian" and how does it differ from a "Christian"?
    Is there a hidden agenda in making the "c" lower case in contradiction
    of the rules of grammar.

    What is "independent" in this context?

    What is "thought" in this context?

    Why is this even a question?  Why not pose the more interesting
    question, at least to me and C.S. Lewis, if non-Christians, or at least
    people holding beliefs (thinking?) an eschatology significantly
    different from the Christian one, have independent thought or are they
    enslaved in their mind to the pursuit of things that are worldly
    because they lack the freedom that the Truth brings. 

re: .29
>On a serious note, as has been noted by Jill and later by Collis, I did not 
>arrive at my conclusions on the truth of the Bible easily.  Since that time
>the truths of the Bible have been made evident to me over and over again..not
>once has it been wrong.  I'll take my "severely constrained " thoughts based
>on Biblical truths over what anybody else has to offer any day, thank you.

If it has never been wrong, ie. if you have never found a case where you had
to really work at finding an interpretation of a passage that worked for you
then perhaps your thinking is not constrained. My question then becomes, if
you found a situation where your beliefs do not coincide with the bible would
you change your beliefs, or say that perhaps the bible is wrong in this 
particular instance?

Steve

re: .32

Jill,

I honestly didn't understand your analogy very well, so I really can't comment on
it. (I'll look again tomorrow, it's been a long day and I may be just 
particularly obtuse, even for me :^)

On the other hand I'll argue each and every piece of whatever you care to propose
as "obviously God's handiwork." And I haven't "just ruled out the existence of
God" in the same way that I haven't just ruled out the existance of Zeus, Odin,
the Medusa, etc. I just haven't seen any evidence to prove the existence of any
of those folks to anywhere near my satisfaction. So to that end I don't feel 
constrained. I would accept God if proof acceptable to me were offered. (However,
that does not mean that I would necessarily bow down and worship. Indeed, if 
God is anything like I understand the prevailing view of him to be he doesn't 
sound like someone I would admire).

Steve

RE:        <<< Note 716.35 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Theologically Impaired" >>>


.then perhaps your thinking is not constrained. My question then becomes, if
.you found a situation where your beliefs do not coincide with the bible would
.you change your beliefs, or say that perhaps the bible is wrong in this 
.particular instance?


I might change my understanding of a certain piece of doctrine perhaps, but
my basic beliefs in the person of Jesus Christ, my sinfulness, God's plan of
salvation and the ultimate fate of those who deny God would not change.




Jim