AletheiaRivers

I found a blog that says something pretty similar to what I was taught in the past, which is - if a person, having repented (cast out a "demon") does not follow thru with that repentance (meaning a change of behavior, surrounding himself with fellow Christians, bolstering his faith, etc ...) will open himself to more troubles in the future (8 "demons" return). The blog says this: I don't know how true such an interpretation is. I'm enjoying the question and plan to keep googling.

I guess I should have read your entire post before posting my first reply. I sure didn't intend to flatten your triangle. Hehehehehe. I was thinking that perhaps conservative, moderate and liberal were three points on a triangle (rather than a line). Within that triangle you can have conservative traditionalists, moderate traditionalists, liberal traditionalist, conservative evangelicals, moderate evangelicals, etc ... I think of traditionalists or evangelicals or charismatics as being the "theological stance", with liberal, moderate and conservative being a way to describe how "literal" or legalistic or metaphorical a person is towards the historicity of Jesus, the stories, the scriptures. I dunno. I'm still trying to understand all this. I guess I don't really have a problem with "traditional" being the third point on the triangle because, in my experience, traditional Christians do have a tendency to be more "moderate" in their views as far as how they view the Christian story. Meaning they believe it's history, but not necessarily told in a literal, innerrant way (like most evangelicals or fundamentalists). I don't know much about "narrative theology", so I can't comment on how it fits within a traditional Christian worldview.

When I left my former denomination I didn't have much guilt or worry that I would displease God. I'm not sure why. JW's are just as harsh as any denom for instilling guilt into their members about being the only way to God and that if you leave, God is going to turn his back on you. I guess I just knew better. Scripture is pretty clear about God's love. It is also pretty clear that we should "search the scriptures, proving to ourselves that things are just so" (not exact words of course). So, in my opinion, God expects us to question and search.

I have a doctors appointment on Thursday at a "dizzy clinic" to test my brain and ears and heart, and then next week I get to have a "sleep deprived EEG" where I get to go for 24 hours with no sleep and then I have to sleep on demand for the test. Question: Who is your favorite fictional character in either film or literature?

The only thing that I know of that even far-off, distantly, remotely, on another planet, compares to what you've had is probably the "Swedish pancakes with lingonberry jam international breakfast" at IHOP.

I'm inspired, thanks! All kidding aside, by your definition (and other definitions I have read) I fall into the Traditional camp overall.

('cause you're slowly coming over to our side!!!--just kidding) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Give in to the Dark Side Luke ..." In the book I'm reading it said something similar to what you said above. I'll quote: "As my class in Chicago read the Gospels and watched movies about Jesus' life, we noticed a striking pattern: the more the unsavory the characters, the more at ease they seemed to feel around Jesus. People like these found Jesus appealing: a Samaritan social outcast, a military officer of the tyrant Herod, a quisling tax collector ... In contrast, Jesus got a chilly response from more respectable types ... I remarked to the class how strange this pattern seemed, since the Christian church now attracts respectable types who closely resemble the people most suspicious of Jesus on earth. What has happened to reverse the pattern of Jesus' day? Why don't sinners like being around us? ... Somehow we have created a community of respectability in the church, I told my class. The down-and-out who flocked to Jesus when he lived on earth, no longer feel welcome. How did Jesus, the only perfect person in history, manage to attract the notoriously imperfect? And what keeps us from following in his steps today?"

I'm just curious Fred. When and why did you start putting the dash in? I have a few Jewish friends and one online friend who is a "Jewish Christian" who use this form of respect towards God when they write. It's totally cool with me. I just wondered if it was on purpose and if so, what prompted the change?

I've noticed that as well, and while that was also true of me in the past (I felt a deep connection to pagansim for example), it's not anymore. The frustrating thing is, while I might feel more connected to an evangelical, conservative Christian than I do to a Buddhist, the Buddhist is probably more likely to be willing to talk to me about what I believe than the evangelical, conservative Christian. As a general rule (and I certainly don't blame them for this), conservative Christians are more concerned with whether a person believes the "right" things and with trying to convince those that don't see things their way that they need to believe exactly the way their particular denomination teaches or they are going to Hell. That doesn't lend itself to conversational openess very well. I've never had an issue talking to you. Why is that?

I'm interested in what antitheses have been entering into your personal mix. I'm always on the lookout for new books, new thoughts, new ways of looking at things. Like I said on another thread, I've almost finished my last Yancey book, and although I have "What's So Amazing About Grace" to read yet, I think I'd like to take a Yancey break. (I'm looking forward to reading the book North recommended as well.)

Oh I totally agree! I was desperately trying to think of anything remotely dopey. I don't do reality TV. I haven't watched a sitcom since Home Improvement (well Frasier I guess). I need a dopey show to list!

Demas I'm here because I feel comfortable here. For the most part nothing I say here is considered shocking. If I tried to work out my faith in print on other forums, I imagine I'd be called a heretic or apostate or even just unfaithful. Truth is, I don't know exactly what I believe, and on this board that is OK. I sometimes get a craving for theological discussion (which has been rather scarce here lately) and so I'll wander over to the Christian to Christian debate board on bnet. I go to theologyweb sometimes or opentheismboard.org. Theologyweb intimidates me. I'm just not that theologically educated. I like opentheismboard.org, but it's a quiet place (even quieter than here). So I just hang out here, biding my time, and hope that some of the new members that sign up will actually stick around and contribute. Maybe someday we'll even talk about Jesus or God. Who knows?

Awesome North, thanks for the review and the recommend. I just bought Peck's "The Road Less Traveled," so it is next on my reading list, but I think I'll make The Hidden Jesus next in line after that. Spoto sounds like someone I would really like. I'm in the process of finishing "The Jesus I Never Knew" by Phil Yancey. I'd highly recommend it as well. He believes literally in some biblical concepts that I still have a hard time with (which he is criticized for on Amazon), but he also doesn't push them down your throat. Although, Amazon reviews say that he slips into evangelical fundamentalist mode towards the end of the book (which I haven't experienced yet). The Hidden Jesus - Link to Amazon reviews The Jesus I Never Knew - Link to Amazon reviews

Dopiest TV programs I like? Hmmmm ... Star Trek DS9 Seven King of the Hill I dunno. Now that I have satelite with a DVR and can record 100 hours of shows, I don't find myself having to watch anything I don't really want to. I'm trying desperately to give Threshold a chance because of Brent Spiner, but they better improve the writing and speed the story line along soon, or even Data won't keep me watching.

I agree. I do really appreciate Borg and his criticisms of fundamentalist Christianity. His views helped me to not leave Christianity altogether. HOWEVER, it took the recommendations of some of my more conservative friends for me to find authors like Chesterton, Yancey, Ward and Lewis. As I read them I realized that I only knew two kinds of Christianity: Liberal (Borg, Crossan, Spong) and literalist, legalist Conservative (my ex-religion). I didn't know there was anything "in between" at all. I avoided reading anything outside of the Jesus Seminar for so long because the way the JS talked about other Christian beliefs, you would think that the only other option was fundamentalism.

I've come across a few individuals on beliefnet who have the same negative, knee-jerk reaction to the term "progressive" but for different reasons. I dunno, it's never bothered me much, but I can also see the viewpoints of those who it does bother. Labels are a pain ... a necessary pain ... but a pain nonetheless.

I've fasted for medical reasons, but not for spiritual ones. After 3 days, hormonal changes kick in and really help with appetite and energy. The important things to remember are to stay hydrated (I certainly wouldn't do a water free fast) and to come off of the fast slowly (drinking juice, eating puried fruits and veggies for the first couple of days). At this point in my life I don't think I'd do a food fast. I think I'd sacrifice a single something very important to me from my diet (like chocolate ) or from my life (like TV or the car) for a period of time (more like Lent).

You're quite welcome mystictrek. Now I need to figure out how to incorporate Wittgenstein into a pun. Or perhaps Kierkegaard? Heck, might be easier to try and make Descarte amusing. Got Kant?

You talkin to me, aletheia, the yin/yang kid? Or to my sis, Des, the hokie-pokie kid? Them dern mormons dunt know wat to thunk of my nick out here in Utarh. I think after I finish with my Philip Yancey books that I'll read Peck.

Hehehehehehehehe, philosophy humor!

They call me the "yin/yang kid" out here in the wild wild west! (Which is easier than the "thesis/antithesis/synthesis kid".)

I didn't think you thought that my views were a compromise! I love it when I get to put together sentences like that! I totally understand where you are coming from. Some of my own frustration squeaked out in a post from a couple of days ago where I mentioned that I get frustrated as to whether focusing on Jesus' Jewishness is helpful or if it hinders. Right now, I'm in the "it helps" phase. Thanks for noticing how much reading I do. I probably do too much, but I just can't help it. It's in my blood.

The definition of "Traditional" that I had in mind is a blend of what you said above, coupled with some emphasis on the Apostles Creed (even if only a little). Beliefnet (who I know is not the definitive guide to theological word usage) has this description for the "Traditional Christianity" area of the board: In this area, Beliefnet welcomes Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians who subscribe to the Apostles' Creed, believe that the Bible is the normative source of authority for Christians but do not necessarily believe the Bible is inerrant, and believe that the traditions of the Church must inform one's understanding of Christianity. On that board (the Traditional Christian board) are liberal, moderate and conservative Christians. Some are Reformed, some are Arminian and some are in-between. Another area of the board is called "Evangelical." The disclaimer there says: In this area, Beliefnet welcomes Christians who believe that the Bible is literally true, inerrant, and the only authority for Christian faith, and that that accepting Jesus Christ as one's only Lord is the only way to salvation. I don't know that I agree with their definition of Evangelical. And for Progressives it says: In this area, Beliefnet welcomes Christians who base their faith primarily on the Bible, do not necessarily believe the Bible is inerrant, and identify primarily as Christians but may find truth expressed in other faiths as well. This fits what it means to be Progressive, but it is a pretty loose definition. I would say that "Traditional Christians" have a tendency to be moderate overall. However enough aren't that using the term interchangeably with moderate might get a bit confusing.

Xian: Nice analogy! You should have chimed in with it on the Jesus Seminar thread. I know I'm most comfortable describing myself as moderate, but I don't think of it as a position that lies between two polar opposites. Question: You used the terms Progressive, Traditional and Conservative. That threw me, because in my mind that would mean Traditional=Moderate. However, I've known some very conservative "Traditional Christians" (Traditional=Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian. ie "Liturgical"). Am I misunderstanding what the term "Traditional" means? I see it used to differentiate certain Christian beliefs from more evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist beliefs. BroRog: I ditto everything Xian has to say.

Sheesh, I've re-written this post a thousand times and still am not sure what I want to say. I don't particularly care for the term "moderate", but it's a term that many understand. I would like to break out of the two dimensional cage, if I only knew what that meant. My involvement in this discussion is my attempt to express that I'm trying to do just that and perhaps using the term moderate doesn't convey well what I glimpse with my minds eye. I definitely know that "liberal" (as defined by many liberals and convservatives) doesn't convey my beliefs anymore. I do hold the stories of Jesus to be more historical than metaphorical, but that doesn't mean I believe they literally happened exactly the way the scriptures say they did. I, like peacemover, do believe in a literal resurrection. Does that mean I have to leave the progressive club?