[Adi Gibb]

October, on Jun 19 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

And I have a masters in NT theology... I don't know how much of your degree included biblical studies but if it did I'm surprised you were so willing to dump so much of the bible. Studying religion and studying the bible are 2 very different things.

Okay, well, let's agree to disagree on this particular issue. Fair deal?

[grampawombat]

Rather than remove a book from the canon, I would prefer to see the entire canon as a product of particular times and situations and therefore not possessed of a uniquely "authoritative" position as the "word of God." My position, though, causes me some grief, as my denomination (PCUSA) insists on calling the Bible "unique and authoritative." I have not dealt with that position well. So perhaps my favorite reform would be to remove that kind of language from the "official" documents of the denomination.

[canajan, eh?]

grampawombat, on Jun 19 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

Rather than remove a book from the canon, I would prefer to see the entire canon as a product of particular times and situations and therefore not possessed of a uniquely "authoritative" position as the "word of God." My position, though, causes me some grief, as my denomination (PCUSA) insists on calling the Bible "unique and authoritative." I have not dealt with that position well. So perhaps my favorite reform would be to remove that kind of language from the "official" documents of the denomination.

I agree with what you've said here. Thank you.

Jen

[PantaRhea]

Well, if we get to vote, put me down for the reforms suggested in posts #12 and #22. I would also add, since we are in the mood for reform, that we take care of some unfinished business from the last Protestant Reformation movement, and get rid of the clergy/laity system.

[October's Autumn]

grampawombat, on Jun 19 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

Rather than remove a book from the canon, I would prefer to see the entire canon as a product of particular times and situations and therefore not possessed of a uniquely "authoritative" position as the "word of God." My position, though, causes me some grief, as my denomination (PCUSA) insists on calling the Bible "unique and authoritative." I have not dealt with that position well. So perhaps my favorite reform would be to remove that kind of language from the "official" documents of the denomination.

That is my position exactly. The problem isn't with the bible. It is with how people view the bible.

[October's Autumn]

Adi Gibb, on Jun 19 2009, 04:14 AM, said:

Okay, well, let's agree to disagree on this particular issue. Fair deal?

I'd prefer that you read what I've had to say. You seem determined to delete things from the bible and from what I can tell have taken nothing from anyone's respondes. Based on your above response (or lack there of) I can only assume that in your study of religion you've done very little actual study of the bible. If I'm incorrect, please let me know. If you want to discuss something, by all means discuss it. But be open to an actual discussion, don't just expect everyone to agree with you.

[Jake]

October, on Jun 24 2009, 01:28 AM, said:

The problem isn't with the bible. It is with how people view the bible.

I couldn't agree more. I believe the question was concerning three great reforms to the Church, not the Bible. I am also not in favor of removing any of the books of the Bible, just changing the way they are taught. Bearing in mind that the Bible (including Revelations) is a work created by mankind and inspired by God, not dictated by God and recorded as if by a court stenographer. It's reading and it's study should be taken contextually and not taught literally. If anything, I would expand on the canon to include more recent works ( the last books being written somewhere around 100AD), as well as more ancient works, such as Q, and the Gospels of Thomas and Peter. All have value because they are numerous people's ponderings and recordings of their impression of God. It only becomes destructive when words are taken out of context, and then taken literally, as in the bumper sticker I recently saw that states, "God Said It, I Believe It, End of Discussion". It is that end of discussion that disturbs me the most. Encouragement of discussion, and evoking questions, rather than providing doctrinal answers, should also be a primary focus of Church.

That would be my second reform, encouraging inter-denominational, and even inter-faith conversation. In my personal growth, I have taken to attending different churches rather than placing my membership entirely in one. I enjoy the reverence and sanctity of the high Church liturgy as found in the Episcopal Church. I enjoy the energy and group participation aspect of tent revival style Baptist services as well. Eastern Orthodoxy is also something I have recently become enamored with, and the Christian mysticism behind some of their practices. The God of my understanding is way to big to fit into one doctrine, one creed, or one building. Each different form of worship has a cultural and traditional basis of value as it is practiced. Recogniizing and respecting how other Christians speak of God is the beginning of expanding my perception of God. The caviot is this needs to be practiced with the intention that ALL Christian worship should be focused on enhancing and enabling. Let's leave the "thou shalt not's" in the book and not on the pulpit.

My third would be the reworking of the Church's missionary agenda, using care not to "lean our ladders on the wrong houses". I am not in favor of the continuing efforts to build churches and "save" souls. The focus should be on determining the needs of an area and assisting the people of that area to fill those needs. Remember, we shall be known by our works, not our words.

...and finally, in reference to several great posta above, and as an American, I would encourage my fellow country men/women to make a greater effort at world peace. Stop calling "football" by the name "soccer".Come up with an original name for the oblong pigskin sport. The game is so much more interesting without all the padding and pomp. Cricket and baseball don't belong in the same sentence either. One is like chess, the other like checkers. Take the time to learn about cricket, it will expand your mind.

-Bless you, Peace

This post has been edited by Jake: 24 June 2009 - 06:36 AM

[Adi Gibb]

October, on Jun 24 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

I'd prefer that you read what I've had to say. You seem determined to delete things from the bible and from what I can tell have taken nothing from anyone's respondes. Based on your above response (or lack there of) I can only assume that in your study of religion you've done very little actual study of the bible. If I'm incorrect, please let me know. If you want to discuss something, by all means discuss it. But be open to an actual discussion, don't just expect everyone to agree with you.

Sigh! OA, please relax! No idea why you are so angry but hopefully we can get through it. Would hate it if everybody agreed with me and when people don't, I kind of think, 'Well, that's their right', and don't respond with increasingly disrespectful comments. Anyway, to answer you question, my Masters was NOT in NT theology, as I have already said. My thesis topic was actually on Pontius Pilate and the canonical and apocryphal accounts of him in the early Eastern churches. Usually I would love to exchange information about the thesis topic you did, where you went to school etc, but...anyway! I have taken on board EVERYTHING you have said, as I have with the other posts. Has this changed the three reforms of the Church which I believe are most needed, no! Do I think I should completely change my opinion about the book of Revelations because you have a Masters degree in NT theology (and my knowledge of said topic is obviously so woefully small compared to yours)? Nope. I am sorry if I have offended you with my notion to 'delete' things from the bible, but those are my views, please respect them as I respect yours. I have stated, in length, why I feel this to be necessary, though I do understand you disagree, and that's okay!

We are siblings in Christ, OA, and I am more than willing to make a fresh start if you are open to it. Would love to hear about your thesis topic in detail, either here or by email. Didn't join these boards for conflict, get enough of that with atheists and fundamentalists! Anyway, the ball is in your court.

[JosephM]

October, on Jun 24 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

I'd prefer that you read what I've had to say. You seem determined to delete things from the bible and from what I can tell have taken nothing from anyone's respondes. Based on your above response (or lack there of) I can only assume that in your study of religion you've done very little actual study of the bible. If I'm incorrect, please let me know. If you want to discuss something, by all means discuss it. But be open to an actual discussion, don't just expect everyone to agree with you.

This response is inappropriate for this board.

If you find that your views with regard to Christianity differ significantly from those that you encounter here and you are a PC holding a commonality of agreement in principle with the 8 points of TCPC you may state your view and why but not enter into debate or disrespect an opposing view. If you wish to challenge or debate start a new topic in the debate section, have at it but still be respectful of the other person as an equal creation of God.
This poster was previously privately warned of making comments personal and will be given time to think about it and not be posting for 7 days.

Joseph (As Moderator/Admin2)