My Response
The Triple T’s ( Tim, Trevor and Travis) have been in dialogue on several important issues concerning, salvation, the Bible, and basically “What it means to be a Christian” to follow Trevor’s original topic. So, although I feel incapable of voicing my opinions with the articulation and clarity of the Three T’s, I will throw this proverbial mud on the wall and see how much of it sticks (or I’ll just watch it slide down).
I am mostly responding to Trevor’s last post.
In regards to secular compassion as a vehicle for salvation-
(Trevor Said) “Of course simple compassion…is living up to God’s Best (we need no text to prove this it is in our guts) and even the inerrant text that would back such a claim is divided and provides no clear picture”
-My problem with this is that if feel just feel God’s Best in our “guts” we open our best actions to being the worst actions in other’s perspectives. For instance a terrorist could easily think that they are following “the way” in trying to please God, when they are really going against God. Suicide bombers aren’t acting selfishly, they have their “arms outstretched to God” in their minds and even though some might say “their aim is the same” their faith by what they believe negates the very core of what I personally think it means to follow God. What about religions who’s beliefs about “God’s Best” leads them to sacrificing their children? Is this a compatible belief with ours? I would think that to follow your logic you would have to say, “Yes.” Or you would have to make a list of acceptable religions (I’m hoping that some Native American religions make it because I think it would be cool.)
In regards to the fall-
I do not want to get into a discussion about whether people are born bad or become bad, but I think that we would all agree that there is bad in us to say the least.
One thing that I do agree very much with in Trevor’s post is his acknowledgement of God’s image into us. I think it is because of God’s imprint in us that we are “without excuse” as the Apostle Paul puts it because of how our soul resonates with His creation. It is interesting (and I know we have a different understanding of what the Bible is) that the scripture does not say “because God’s creation resonates with everyone’s soul, you are all partners in God’s salvation.” On the contrary, he says that we are without excuse. Just an observation.
In regards to Trevor’s "non-universalism"-
My question is “why not just be a Universalist?” It seems very intolerant of you to say that those who follow your list of Truth, Beauty, Love and Compassion somehow are “in” and those with no spiritual life could possible be “out.” (Note: you imply that this is a possibility by denying your position of Universalism, even though you don’t know what will happen to them) Why can’t someone’s spirituality be a religion of selfishness? Why can’t my religion be materialism? What makes Truth, Beauty, Compassion, and Love so great?
I see think kind of thinking very disturbing. It seems to me that Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive in regards to salvation, unless you just pick what you “like” out of the core beliefs (yes, read “scriptures”). How do you decide what you will believe about Jesus? Do you just pick teachings that you like and leave out the ones where he makes the implication that he is “God”? And if he isn’t God, then aren’t their better teachers and even theologians who have written with more direct fervor the need to love our neighbors in a wholistic, redemptive way?
Oh an one other thing, as far as reading the Bible I totally agree that it is our story and we have made the mistake in the past of reading as a manual for our lives. And although, I do believe that “all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching etc…” I think that the way people have used the Bible throughout our recent history has neglected to see the genres of writing and understand our story through that lens.
Anyway, I really like Trevor. I find him to be honest and in pursuit of God which is beautiful. I really like his tone of discussion and am looking forward to more dialogue in the future.
Comments?
4 Comments:
You will probaly not like my comment on Trevor's blog. :)
I'm glad you like Trev. I like him too. I am happy I "next blogged" and found you and your wife. My mother-in-law would call it a GTBT(God thing big time), but then she's a little nutty sometimes. By the way, how's your wife's toe? Haven't heard anything new from her in a while.
just a few comments that i think coincide with this topic. first about the fact that we cannot know that God or Jesus exists: this is how it should be. we're commanded to have faith in God and faith in Jesus. if there was absolute knowledge in God's existence then faith wouldn't exist because it would be knowledge rather than faith. this is an extremely scary idea but i also believe that there is some part of us that is able to "feel" that God exists and renews and reassures our faith. secondly, about the church idea, i'm not really sure what the arguments are but i did notice one quote,"we can see the need of a church community." this is something i completely agree with although i am one who is almost turned away from the idea of church. the idea of church was indeed started to be a community, for worship and support. but it seems as though the reasons for church are being forgotten and church now represents law and the way to gain salvation. i'm a catholic and i must say that a great deal of this can be seen in the laws of the catholic church. so the question is, why have we moved away from the ideals that the very idea of church was founded on? and the reason i find is our interpretation of God's word. this certainly is the reason for the various divisions in the church, which more than likely was intended to be universal. i guess my question is, why can't the church just go back to being a community of worship, support, and fellowship instead of trying to be a god on earth?
we may not be commanded, but faith is required for salvation, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home