BeachOfEden Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Here is something that has frustrated me for some time and that is that there are, in my view, basically '2' parts of elements to a religion or faith group. One is the Doctrines..and the other part or element is the Social Justice Views. T he problem is..that is the field of theology or research...these '2' elements are more often then not lumped or merged together into one and this makes studying the faith group complicated. A good example of what I mean is when a faith group views the resurrection of Jesus as REAL instead of just a metaphore..then they are grouped or labled "fundamental" rather than liberal. They group them this way because most view liberals as viewing all mircles as merely 'myths' or metaphores. This is the DOCTRINE. However, if a faith group bans women from being preachers/pastors/elders,ect..then this too would be conisdered 'Fundamental"...But in this case, this would be SOCIAL JUSTIVE VIEWS. I guess what I am getting at is..whatever your background..if you are NOW Progressive..in that you DO embrace ALL the SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES..but you happen to view the resurrection of Jesus as REAl and maybe mircles in general..then it does not seem correct or right that you be labled 'Fundamental' merely on a count of one's belief in the resuurection as real and or mircles..and thus the FACT they one DOEs embrace ALL the Social Justice Issues be DIsregarded or not count..Thus How do we 'SEPERATE' the Social Justice beliefs...FROM...the Doctrinal Beliefs?..and what about when the Social Justice does cross over into the Doctrinal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I think it is a matter of emphasis. Is someone more concerned about what Jesus did or rather or not Mary was a Virgin? If Mary being a virgin is not particularly important (and they may still hold that to be true) but what Jesus did (and our need to follow that example) is Primary than I'd say that person was a Progressive. If someone is overly concerned that you believe in Virgin Mary, baptism, Resurrection and resurrection, and all of Jesus miracles actually happened (you can add ot the list or subtract) then I'd say they are conservative. Again, it is not about their personal belief but where the put the emphasis on their personal belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) Someone can be theologically conservative but socially progressive. I think Tony Campolo is a good example. Philip Yancey. Possibly Brian McLaren. Phil Yancey believes in a physical resurrection. He believes in a literal fallen angel named Satan. He believes in sacrificial atonement. He is however, rather socially progressive. Edited January 16, 2006 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Someone can be theologically conservative but socially progressive. I think Tony Campolo is a good example. Philip Yancey. Possibly Brian McLaren. Phil Yancey believes in a physical resurrection. He believes in a literal fallen angel named Satan. He believes in sacrificial atonement. He is however, rather socially progressive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly! Although the question remains (in response to the original post) where is his emphasis? I am surprised at the fallen angel/Lucifer thing. I just assumed that people had been educated out of that one. It was a King who fell. I wonder if Yancy reads the KJV version of the bible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I don't know if Yancey thinks Satan is Lucifer actually. I may have mispoke when I included the "fallen angel" part. But he does view Satan as an actual independent being, in opposition to God, and NOT as an aspect of God, as Judaism does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I don't know if Yancey thinks Satan is Lucifer actually. I may have mispoke when I included the "fallen angel" part. But he does view Satan as an actual independent being, in opposition to God, and NOT as an aspect of God, as Judaism does. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gotcha. ALthough I disagree with the view on Judaism and Satan. From my experience in the liberal Conservative congregation the members and the Rabbi did not believe in Satan as an independant being OR as an aspect of God. Although I know it is a concept from the Hebrew Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachOfEden Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 AletheiaRivers: "Someone can be theologically conservative but socially progressive. I think Tony Campolo is a good example. Philip Yancey. Possibly Brian McLaren. Phil Yancey believes in a physical resurrection. He believes in a literal fallen angel named Satan. He believes in sacrificial atonement. He is however, rather socially progressive." Precisley. That IS what I was talking about. What kind of name or discription would be given to such a believer such as Tony Campolo? A Social Progressive..but...? Cause I believe like him..sounds like..at least... October's Autumn: " I am surprised at the fallen angel/Lucifer thing. I just assumed that people had been educated out of that one. It was a King who fell. I wonder if Yancy reads the KJV version of the bible!" ???? So if one was to believe that Satan WAS a fallen angel then this means they are a fundamentalist? But how? BTW, there is a very fundamental faith group that is very closely related to Jehovah's Witnesses called The Christadelphians and THEy Do NOT believe that Satan is a real person. But again, whether one believes Satan is a fallen angel or a real person or not...has nothing to do with a person supporting social justice views or not, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 October's Autumn: " I am surprised at the fallen angel/Lucifer thing. I just assumed that people had been educated out of that one. It was a King who fell. I wonder if Yancy reads the KJV version of the bible!" ???? So if one was to believe that Satan WAS a fallen angel then this means they are a fundamentalist? But how? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Beach, I think OA's point was that, biblically, Lucifer and Satan are not the same being. Lucifer is not Satan's name. Lucifer is not "the devil's" name. And actually, in Judaism, Satan is not God's adversary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Gotcha. ALthough I disagree with the view on Judaism and Satan. From my experience in the liberal Conservative congregation the members and the Rabbi did not believe in Satan as an independant being OR as an aspect of God. Although I know it is a concept from the Hebrew Bible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The general gist I've gotten, although I'm sure there are many many views, is that HaSatan is a spiritual being, created by God, to serve as the "accuser" or "prosecuting attorney" against humanity. These spiritual beings do NOT have free will, however, so in essence, they can be called aspects of God, as they are doing exactly what God created them to do. I'm not saying I agree with this. It's just something I've read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Beach, I think OA's point was that, biblically, Lucifer and Satan are not the same being. Lucifer is not Satan's name. Lucifer is not "the devil's" name. Lucifer means "light-bearer," which I take to refer archetypally to the principle of light and truth nearest to the very being of God -- the reflector and messenger of God's light and truth. The original phrase "Morning Star" was rendered into Latin as "Lucifer" by Jerome in the 4th century. Traditionally, the idea is that this luminary figure was not content merely to reflect God's light, but wanted to be the highest light itself. Of course, by turning away from God's light, it became literally unplugged from its only possible source, thereby banishing itself from the true light and becoming mired in darkness forever. It symbolizes the downward aspect of the soul, the disposition toward ego, fragmentation, domination, ignorance, violence, and on and on. And please, a little imagination here. We're in the domain of symbolism! Metaphysical mythologizing, right Flow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Fits right in with the tower of Babel story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 (edited) . And please, a little imagination here. We're in the domain of symbolism! Metaphysical mythologizing, right Flow? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OH, OH,... METAPHYSICAL MYTHOLOGIZING ? GRRRRRRRRRRRR ! Actually, I was just about to say that the symbolic existences of Satan and Lucifer are really trapped somewhere else in the fourth dimension, and that they can only assert their powers through illusion and the willful control of some humans who do their will in the present because they have made the mistake of following falsehood instead of true things. In other words, they chose badly, and they are programmed to act in very bad ways from time to time. I'm still trying to work out whether Lucifer and Satan are separated and trapped in the future or in the past, or if they are together in any sort of coordinated mindset and will at all. Maybe one is in the future and one is in the past and working towards the middle of humanity's timeline since it is my belief that G-d starts everything in the middle and works both ways. That's why it appears that G-d is simultaneously ever present and everywhere in the universe as we know it. If I were to make a guess I would say that Lucifer is in the past, and Satan is in the future, but both have the power to project their will to affect us all accordingly, but only in episodic and non-linear ways. Both are tricksters and have little or no consideration for life or its continuance. flow.... Edited January 16, 2006 by flowperson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Gotcha. ALthough I disagree with the view on Judaism and Satan. From my experience in the liberal Conservative congregation the members and the Rabbi did not believe in Satan as an independant being OR as an aspect of God. Although I know it is a concept from the Hebrew Bible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The general gist I've gotten, although I'm sure there are many many views, is that HaSatan is a spiritual being, created by God, to serve as the "accuser" or "prosecuting attorney" against humanity. These spiritual beings do NOT have free will, however, so in essence, they can be called aspects of God, as they are doing exactly what God created them to do. I'm not saying I agree with this. It's just something I've read. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have as well. It come strongly from the book of Job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Beach, I think OA's point was that, biblically, Lucifer and Satan are not the same being. Lucifer is not Satan's name. Lucifer is not "the devil's" name. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yup. I was also surprised someone like Yancy would not realize this. Of course we've cleared that up. I've found that generally speaking people who are more socially active are also more educated. That also tends to lead one out of using the KJV as the absolute only true bible, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachOfEden Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 "That also tends to lead one out of using the KJV as the absolute only true bible, etc. " I never saw what was so great about the KJV. I am not a big fan of Shakespear talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 "That also tends to lead one out of using the KJV as the absolute only true bible, etc. " I never saw what was so great about the KJV. I am not a big fan of Shakespear talk. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can say, one thing about growing up reading it was I had no problem understanding Shakespeare in High School! Actually, I think the psalms sometimes sound better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) It's actually the poetry language style (thee, thou) of the KJV that I like the most. Psalms just doesn't sound right in any other version. The reason I don't use it anymore is because of the translational errors. Edited January 17, 2006 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.