ITT We Discuss Theology

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

For many of us, the Nicene and Apostles creeds are normative and something of a bedrock, but there're lots of Christians for whom they are not and for whom any creed is suspect. Saying "study the creeds and then we'll talk" is essentially saying "adopt my perspective and then we'll talk."

==================================================

No, actually what I was SUGGESTING was a read of the creeds and an invitation to discuss. I find them useful as a point of reference but my comment was not intended to be in the form of "adopt my perspective and then we'll talk". It was a suggestion to propose a framework for discussion. What works for me does not imply that it works for everyone else but it does offer a starting point from which a concensus might or might not be achieved.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Some random theological musings:

I believe that Jesus called for people to care about ALL of people's needs.

When people were hungry, he didn't just preach to them, he fed them.

It bugs me when people say "well feeding the homeless is great, but they need Jesus."

Um, feeding homeless people IS Jesus. I feel like we minister to people through the things we do to help them, not just by telling them about the Gospel.

Thoughts?

My particular flavor of Lutheranism does a lot of social justice, and other work, and we just aren't much on proselytizing, one of the many reasons we are slow to gain members. There's also an attitude of the churches I've attended that everyone is welcome, those who are baptized can have communion (we don't check IDs, it is on the honor system), and people can come and never have to be baptized, convert, or join the congregation. I wasn't really sure how well known it was that we're not trying to convert until the 2004 tsunamis in Southeast Asia. Indonesia is about 88% Sunni Muslim, the most Muslim nation in the world both by population and percentage, and Lutheran World Relief was allowed personnel on the ground who were under local organizations. Certain other sects that often go to other disasters, and do proselytize, sent all of their aid through Islamic Relief Worldwide and weren't as welcome. I'm sure there are individuals who would like to witness and perhaps covert people, but they can't do that and work under LWR.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Somehow that just seems so . . . oxymoronic -- a call to a a holy Lent, with all that entails, given in such curt fashion. But hey, I guess if it reaches even one person, the angels rejoice.

The Chabad Lubavitch community of Boise had a Sukkah on wheels for Sukkot http://www.jewishidaho.com/templates...-on-Wheels.htm For those who can't build a sukkah which I always thought was a pretty good idea to allow people to practice their faith as well as teaching about it to others who may see the Sukkah.

Even though I am personally a fan of "high church" in the practices of my faith, I'm not high church when it comes to the other parts of my faith. I grew up in a very high church congregation, Scandinavians and Germans, that anything too far from that just makes me uncomfortable, for example not receiving a wafer for Communion I'll never get used to, nor a church where communion isn't done every Sunday. Kneeling is normal, as are vestments and paraments, and there are some parts done in Latin, the only musical instruments are an organ, piano, some hand bells, and voices. The "green book" I grew up with started being replaced in 2006, and I'm still uncomfortable with it since Psalms have some word changes to be more gender neutral and that makes it difficult to appropriately pause. All of that aside, I like that women are equals to men when it comes to ordination, that we now allow those with same sex partners to be ordained, we welcome all who are baptized to the table to partake in the Eucharist, but changing how we worship has been really hard to accept.

I also don't do any Lenten activities like fasting, avoiding meat on Friday, or giving up anything. If I gave up something I'd probably be cranky and that is a disservice to everyone around me, so I try and pick up a habit and be positive instead of creating a negative.This year I've made a plan to get my house completely cleaned out of stuff that needs to go and to do some cleaning and maintenance that is overdue. I bought most of what I needed last weekend so as long as I do something on the list everyday I'll be on track.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

No, actually what I was SUGGESTING was a read of the creeds and an invitation to discuss. I find them useful as a point of reference but my comment was not intended to be in the form of "adopt my perspective and then we'll talk". It was a suggestion to propose a framework for discussion. What works for me does not imply that it works for everyone else but it does offer a starting point from which a concensus might or might not be achieved.

Sorry if I read your post other than intended and inferred what you did not mean.

I find that, for me at least, the better framework is that the goal is understanding one another, and the best starting point is to understand where people are now by asking questions so that I can understand where they are coming from, and by explaining why I think as I do. For me and in this kind of context, suggesting that someone study something (that supports my view) and then we'll have some discussion based on that sends the message that there isn't already a basis of discussion -- what the other believes/thinks and why and what I believe/think and why. I guess that would be my bias that led to my inference.

[dekeguy]

[QUOTE=MysticCat;2127572]Sorry if I read your post other than intended and inferred what you did not mean.

================================================== ====

Mystic Cat,

As usual, semantics and terminology get in the way. I think we are pretty much on the same sheet of music but we both probably could have phrased ourselves to reflect the closeness of our positions. Sorry that I did not state things more clearly.
I think our Jesuit friend Little Dragon was very helpful by providing his perspective and I hope Cen1aur 1963 found all of this useful in trying to think through his own question.
Now, strictly from my belief, I do accept the Nicean creed and the concept of a trinitarian God consisting of three persons in one God does not trouble me in the least. Of course Jesus is God, as is the Father, as is the Holy Spirit. Do I fully understand this - no - but I expect that some day I will when (if) I receive the beatific vision, which was once explained to me by a wise old Jesuit who compared it for want of better vocabulary to being able to see the whole of Creation through God's eyes. What a thought! What a vision!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

As usual, semantics and terminology get in the way. I think we are pretty much on the same sheet of music but we both probably could have phrased ourselves to reflect the closeness of our positions.

Agreed.

Do I fully understand this - no - but I expect that some day I will . . . .

Taking this and running a little bit in a slightly different direction for yet another semi-tangent:

It often seems to me that there is a component in much of Western Christianity (certainly in my particular strand of Western Christianity) to want to explain and understand everything. It's as though if we can't explain it and understand it, we can't believe it. For example, "I don't understand how all three Persons of the Trinity can be God, be distinct from each other and yet there is only one God, therefore I have trouble accepting it."

Or we try too hard to explain and understand that which is unexplainable (this side of the grave, as you note). For example, transubstantiation vs. transignification vs. consubstantation vs. Sacramental union vs. pneumatic/dynamic presence as ways to understand or explain the Real Presence (assuming, of course, one accepts the idea of the Real Presence to begin with).

It often seems to me that Eastern Christianity does a better job of simply "letting the mystery be" rather than trying to explain everything.