Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Hi Patricia, can I ask where you are taking these Bible courses?
    
    Nancy

    Andover Newton Theological School.
    
    Patricia

    Patricia,
    
    What is a Theological school?  I'm sorry do they promote the Bible as
    history or inerrant?
    
    Nancy

    Inerrant is a word not to be found anywhere in the Bible.  The Bible
    does not even claim inerrancy of itself.  Inerrancy is a fundamentalist
    notion.
    
    Theology, in the dictionary sense, means "study of God."  In reality,
    it is more complicated than this.
    
    From what little I know about this particular institution, the Bible
    is taken seriously, but not necessarily taken literally.
    
    I'll address the basenote question in another entry.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    ANTS is affiliated with both the UCC and American Baptist Church.  I
    find it fairly conservative but it does have a reputation for being a
    fairly liberal school.  It is not specifically recommended by  the
    UUA but it does have a fair representation a Unitarian Universalist
    students.
    
    I am careful about who I take Bible courses with because I do not
    accept the innerancy of the Bible and refuse to sit through a course
    where I will be browbeat for my theology.
    
    My instructor for the Corinthian Course was a young women completing
    her PHD dissertation from Harvard Divinity School.  She was excellent.
    Her approach was a literary, historical, theological approach.  She
    personally believes in the authority of the Bible but not the
    innerrancy.  She was challenging and affirming in spite of my beliefs
    being much different than hers.  Since Andover Newton does recruit and
    accept Unitarian Universalist students, my expectation is that my
    belief structure will be affirmed at the school even if most of the
    instructors are more conservative than I am.
    
    I don't think many instructors at ANTS believe in the innerancy of the
    Bible but I only know of few of the instructors.
    
    Does this answer your question?
    
    Patricia

    Also see topic 778, "Formal Education in Religion."
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Thank you Patricia!  This explanation will clarify a lot of contention
    later on should this topic take off. 
    
    God Bless,
    Nancy

    Its in 811 to try to keep the conversation on the topic. 
    
    Now back to our topic.
    
    Why do you expect contention?
    
    Patricia

    Why does a mother expect her children to bicker? :-) :-)

A Theological School is usually another name for a
seminary.

Indeed, Andover-Newton Theological School (ANTS) is
considered by conservative Christians to be a liberal
school.

Since Richard obviously desire to discuss inerrancy in .4,
I'll respond to his assertions.

  >The Bible does not even claim inerrancy of itself.  

Totally, absolutely false.  You have chosen to not believe
the many places that the Bible indicates that it is true
and accurate.  In some cases, you have chosen to re-interpret
the Bible in inconsistent ways so as to show that it does
not claim it is true.

  >Inerrancy is a fundamentalist notion.

Since fundamentalism started only 100+ years ago, I wonder
what people believed before that?  Oh, they believed the Bible
was true and accurate.  They didn't believe in inerrancy,
however, because fundamentalism didn't exist yet.  :-)

Nowadays, us evangelicals obviously don't believe in inerrancy
because we're not fundamentalists.  NOT.

Collis

    Nancy,
    
    Do you question your own motivation for your style of noting?  I do
    question mine and attempt to note with a sense of honesty and
    integrity.  Sometimes I do get caught in my own emotional stuff and
    respond out of my baser instincts. I don't like that in  myself and
    attempt to be aware of it.
    
    I have just read your series of notes with Richard where there seems
    like a fair amount of baiting going on.  I don't understand this long
    string of questions about where I am going to theology school and what
    is a theology school and what I am being taught etc. I have tried to
    answer your questions honestly.  My question was an honest question.  I'm 
    not looking for a fight.  I am deeply interested in knowing how much 
    agreement there is among Christians on the meaning of the cross and
    ressurrection.  Nancy, my question is not only to you but also to
    myself and all of us who note in here.
    
    I expect that there can be honest discussion and disagreement without
    name calling and contention.  I am frustrated when serious discussions
    degenerate into contention.  I believe that if there is going to be
    World Peace then interfaith dialogue is essential.  If we cannot have
    dialogue here between people who consider themselves Christians or are
    somehow drawn to Christianity enough to be noting in here then the
    world is in serious trouble and I believe we are in fact indicting
    Christianity as a religion that can only lead to contention.  I believe
    the Core values of Christianity are about unity, and love, and peace.  Am I
    talking about the wrong religion?  Are there really in fact multiple
    very distinct religions within Christianity.  One religion about
    isolating a very small select group of people from a sinful world and
    the other about appealing to the nobler instincts of all  humanity to
    accept God's Grace and live under the influence of that Grace.  
    
    If there really are two very distinct religions what are the
    implications of that?  Perhaps another note topic is needed?
    
    Patricia
    
    
    Patricia
    create a world of 
    
    Patricia
    
     

Re: Note 812.12  

    Patricia:
    
 >>   I expect that there can be honest discussion and disagreement without
 >>   name calling and contention.  I am frustrated when serious discussions
 >>   degenerate into contention.  

      I think most people dislike contention Patricia.  As a noter and a
     reader, I have strong expectations of people in these types of conferences.
     I expect that if a premise be made, it must be backed up historically,
     prophetically, or logically.  I believe this is healthy challenge and 
     would hope it will build us all in knowledge and wisdom.  Incidentally,
     I would expect you have the same expectations of Nancy.

>>    I believe that if there is going to be
>>    World Peace then interfaith dialogue is essential.  If we cannot have
>>    dialogue here between people who consider themselves Christians or are
>>    somehow drawn to Christianity enough to be noting in here then the
>>    world is in serious trouble and I believe we are in fact indicting
>>    Christianity as a religion that can only lead to contention.

      Interesting how we were discussing the meanings of the synoptic gospels
      earlier.  What do you think this passage means.
      "Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth: I came not to send
       peace but a sword.  For I have come to set a man against his father,
       and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter n law against her
       mother n law.  And a man's enemies shall be they of his own 
       household."  Matthew 10: 34-36.

>>  I believe the Core values of Christianity are about unity, and love, and 
>> peace.  Am I talking about the wrong religion?  

  Yes, the core values are just as you mentioned.  These are the values and are
  the essence of how we are to let our light so shine before men.  I believe 
  you will find this as the core values of most all religions in the world.
  Other than Satan worship, can you tell me of a religion that doesn't have 
  unity, love, and peace as the core values?  
  In love and with the intent for us to help build one another, I say to you
  with the very best of intentions that you are focusing on the apples and not
  on the tree.  The core fundamentals of religion are love peace and unity.  
  The core foundation of Christianity is Jesus and his atoning death on the
  cross.  This is what brings a bone of contention between christians and 
  the world.  

 >>   Are there really in fact multiple
 >>   very distinct religions within Christianity.  One religion about
 >>   isolating a very small select group of people from a sinful world and
 >>   the other about appealing to the nobler instincts of all  humanity to
 >>   accept God's Grace and live under the influence of that Grace.  
   
 Patricia, how can one accept God's grace and reject the cross at the same 
 time?  I say very clearly and unequivocally that Jesus died for the sins
 of the world and not simply for a select group.  Salvation is available to
 all who hunger and thirst for it.  Problem is, nobody is hungry!!

 -Jack    
     

RE:                      <<< Note 812.13 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


>  In love and with the intent for us to help build one another, I say to you
>  with the very best of intentions that you are focusing on the apples and not
>  on the tree.  The core fundamentals of religion are love peace and unity.  
>  The core foundation of Christianity is Jesus and his atoning death on the
>  cross.  This is what brings a bone of contention between christians and 
>  the world.  


   



 
>Patricia, how can one accept God's grace and reject the cross at the same 
> time?  I say very clearly and unequivocally that Jesus died for the sins
> of the world and not simply for a select group.  Salvation is available to
> all who hunger and thirst for it.  Problem is, nobody is hungry!!

 

 AMEN Jack...     

    Jack,
    
    I accept God's grace in my life.  It is truly a wonderful gift.
    
    I do not accept the meaning of the Cross the way Collis, Nancy, and you
    define it.
    
    I would define God's grace as the Forest and the acceptance or
    rejection of the correct doctrine concerning the cross as a leaf of a
    tree.
    
    I reject matthew 10 34-36.  My theology allows me to reject passages
    that do not make sense to me.  I have not studied that passage in
    detail to know why that literary style is used, or the context in which
    it is used or whether it is deemed original or not.  For me the main
    reason for going through that exercise though would be to offer an
    acceptable challenge to one who found authority in the passage. 
    Biblical authority is not the basis for my decision making.
    
    Patricia

    There seems to be at least 2 schools of thought:
    
    	Sin-based (or Sin-focused) theology
    
    	Grace-based (or Grace-focused) theology
    
    Neither (necessarily) excludes the other.  But each sure seems to come
    from a different place.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    re: Note 812.17 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
    Hi Nancy!
    
    What kind of terminal do you note from?  Several of your replies have
    "garbage characters" embedded in them.  Just curious... I hate to see
    technical flaws in such typically beautiful responses!
    
    John   8)

    Its modem garbage, I'm at home this week... my sincere apologies. :-(
    
    Nancy

By the way, Patricia, note that the theology of those you
mention is based on the Bible.  The real issue you have is
not with Nancy's or with Collis' beliefs, but rather the clear
teaching of the Bible in this area (e.g., I Cor 15, I Cor. 1,
Hebrews 10 and numerous other places).

The Bible's teaching is not unclear or obscure.  You freely
admit to picking and choosing what you want and ignoring that
which contradicts your beliefs.  As these and other passages
point out, taking the cross out of Christianity takes the
heart out of the gospel.  There is no message to give if,
as Paul notes in I Cor 15, we are all still dead in our sins
and we have no hope.  That is Biblical theology; take it or
leave it.

Collis

    *That is biblical theology, take it our leave it.
    
    No Collis, 
    
    That is one piece of Paul's Biblical Theology.  What Paul is saying
    about how we are bought for a price is not clear from 1 Corinthians. 
    Perhaps Romans will help me.  It still is just one piece of Biblical
    Theology.  I may reject that piece but there is still much in Paul that
    I value and much also in the Bible that I value.
    
    My perception of the difference between a liberal theologian and a
    conservative one is that both pick and choose which passages from
    scripture that they find inspiration in.  The liberal is more aware and
    open about how they do it.  The conservative denies that they are being
    selective. 
    
    My perception
    
    Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    As one who may be termed a "conservative" theologian, I would be
    interested in an example of how somebody like myself picks and chooses 
    a portion of doctrine as a foundation for a belief.  I say with all
    honesty that I reject none of it.  I do however choose to take all
    scripture in context with who the writer was directing the message
    toward.  Example:
    
    "Faith without works is dead."  James 2: 14 I believe.
    
    Does this mean that without works we cannot be saved?  Very good
    question and one passage to be studied and understood.  James epistle
    was directed toward a group of individuals who would pass the poor and
    oppressed individual and say, "May God be with you", but seemed to have
    no desire to be the salt of the earth in their eyes, offer no
    assistance, no compassion, no love!  In the eyes of the poor, their
    faith was dead because they did not practice it.  However, see 1st
    Corinthians 3.  They are still saved, yet only as one escaping through
    the flames.  I believe this to be true, you may see it differently.
    The theme of the cross, however, is prominent throughout the whole New
    Testament and the coming and suffering of the Messiah is prominent in
    the Old and New Testament.  
    
    This is only an example of how we may differ.  Your perception of one
    picking and choosing may not be accurate.  We surely agree that there
    are passages that must be taken in context with other passages.  The
    message of the cross, however, is one piece of doctrine you are going
    to have a difficult time shaking off.  You may resolve in your mind not
    to believe it and this is your right; however, the theme of redemption
    by the blood of Jesus will always be there and will certainly be called
    into question as we are challenged in our walks with God.  
    
    I have a burden for you Patricia and I just hope the meaning of Christ'
    death will become more evident to you as you continue to study the New
    Testament.  
    
    -Jack  

    Patricia,
    
    I think perhaps what you may be perceiving is in another note topic in
    this conference, the *walk and talk* and possibly *acting like a
    Christian*????
    
    The Bible as a whole needs to be digested regularly and taken in its
    full context.  Many false doctrines have erupted from partial truth as
    as a result of partial study.
    
    I know that I've had my faith and beliefs challanged and oftimes had to
    ask myself do I believe because *I* studied or am I trusting *teachers*
    that I have studied under.
    
    That is one of the reasons noting in here is wonderful because it's an
    opportunity to reproove my beliefs... :-)
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

Re:  .21

No, Patricia, this is *Biblical Theology*.

First off, it is in the Bible.  That makes it Biblical
Theology.

Second off, it is not limited to Paul.  I explicitly
included a reference in Hebrews (the whole letter of Hebrews
could really be included since the cross is such an integral
basis of the letter).  Jesus *sat down* at the right hand of
God the Father.  The work of redemption from sin was *finished*.

I Peter starts off right away discussing this in verses 2
and 3 discussing the the sprinkling of Christ's blood and the
resurrection which provided a new birth into a living hope.

We're not talking about something that 1 person mentions once
or twice.  We are talking about theology is that integrated into
Scripture from beginning to end.  The whole sacrificial system
of the Old Testament foretells this!  Why is this so hard to
see?  We're not discussing whether it's right or wrong - just
whether or not this is all over Scripture.  Does someone really
need to point out 25 or 50 references?

Collis

    Patricia:
    
    As another individual who is seeking truth, I personally am encouraged
    you are referencing the Bible alot more than you used to.  Though there
    may be disagreement, it seems you acknowledge the Bible as a viable
    reference to find truth.  One thing that has always bothered me in
    christian discussion is individuals who insist on putting symbolism
    over substance, emotion over reason, and the like.  
    
    I am a participant here to broaden my horizons and have my mind changed
    if need be.  I look to people such as yourself to challenge me.  It
    builds faith and expounds truth.  I encourage you as I try to encourage
    myself to be willing to climb over doctrine, emotion, and symbolism 
    to uncover truth.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    Collis,
    Nancy,
    
    I appreciate all three replies.  The were all high quality honest
    dialogue that I can appreciate.  Collis, I am with you.  I have to make
    sense out of this ressurection theology.  I am not comfortable that I
    know enough for an informed opinion right now.  I am fortunate to have
    two UU ministers who are informally my mentors and they have struggled
    with this question also and have provided me some reading material and
    also the names of other UU ministers who can help.  I am even reading
    Karl Barth book on the Epistle to the Romans which I am finding
    horrifying but I am ciphering out what makes sense and does not make
    sense to me.  Romans is a lot tougher for a UU than Corinthians.
    
    Let's agree to continue this discussion as I read through the new
    testament and other readings.
    
    Thanks
    
    Patricia
     

    I am in the process of signing up for the Fall Semester.  I am about to
    mail in my registration packet.  I am going to try three courses this
    Semester!   This represents a significant next step in my commitment to
    get my M Div degree.  The Three Courses
    
    Violence and Abuse and its impact on the Family and Church
    Mindful Meditation
    History of the Trinity thru 5th Century
    
    The first two are in the Pastoral Counselling Dept and the third is in
    the History Dept.  I might drop the third course, but I know I need
    three History Courses for my Degree.
    
    I have a meeting with the head of the Pastoral Counselling Program and
    may change my direction more toward Pastoral Counselling than Parish
    Ministry.   We shall see!
    
                                    Patricia

    Good luck, Patricia.  May the Spirit guide you.

    Thank you Debie,
    
    patricia