Hi, people. I'm very interested in the subject of religion. Since Hatrack is the first international forum I'm in, I figured it would be a great place to know about others' religions. It does not matter if it is not an established on, like the Catholic or Baptist Church. I just wanted to know what people believe and why. So...if you like the idea, let's discover how diverse are religions, here in Hatrack. Oh, yes...later (when I come back from work), I can talk about my own case. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Everyone here is Mormon, and you will be too, as soon as our agent gets to you.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Mormonism is defintly over represented on this board, but certainly there's a very wide variety of faiths on this board. Me? I'm Mormon too (one of those )
[EDIT: Don't pay attention to those people who tell you I spelled "Mormon" as "Momron", as you can tell I clearly didn't. ]
Hobbes
[ October 28, 2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
There is no god but no god, and no one is no god's prophet.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And there are none so blind, as those who will not see...
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Thats an odd religion Sopwith!
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Only a response to your double negatives post of before. Now that one left me scratching my head in puzzlement...
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Momron? Are you creating your own sect, Hobbes? As for me, I'm agnostic.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's a typo RRR. He meant "Moron".
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Only a response to your double negatives post of before. Now that one left me scratching my head in puzzlement...
This is a gross understatement. There are at least 4 negatives in that initial sentence.
Posted by Saruman (Member # 2275) on :
Actually, there are precisely four negatives, and they're paired together into double negatives.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
UofUlawguy was right- there are only two basic religious groups here: the Mormons and those who have not yet been assimilated. Don't try to fight it Eduardo. Resistance is futile.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Nice to see you here, Jacare Sorridente. Do you know how I say "Espírita (Kardecista)" in english? It's a shame, but I really forgot.
Thanks in advance. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Momron - wasn't that the bad guy in Thundercats? Is that who Hobbes is worshipping these days?
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
The bad guy in Thundercats was Mum-Ra.
Hey, Hobbes, there is an organized cult? Are you a priest? Did you capture Lion and the other Thundercats already?
(Just Kidding) Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I am king of the cats, the lions kept sleeping on the job so us tigers snatched the role.
Hobbes Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Eduardo- it is actually just a direct translation: Espiritismo Kardecista is called Kardeckian spiritualism.
Thanks, Jacare! Well...so, I can say I'm a Kardeckian spiritualist (como "eu sou Espírita Kardecista" em português), right?
Oh, yes...I'm curious...are you a brazilian guy living abroad or are you an American who lived here for a long time (or took the pains to learn the beautiful but complex language there is portuguese)?
And...why "Jacare Sorridente"?
Posted by Mormoniacal (Member # 5333) on :
As my name implies I too am Mormon. And yes I am also quite maniacal... in fact I doubt you'll meet a mormon who isn't.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Thanks, Jacare! Well...so, I can say I'm a Kardeckian spiritualist (como "eu sou Espírita Kardecista" em português), right?
Right... I think. It seems that some places make an issue of the difference between "spiritist" and "spiritualist". I am not sure what the difference is myself. Also, I know that in Brazil there are a number of different sects of spiritualism including ones that mix in African elements such as candomble and umbanda. I don't know whether these sects are "spiritist" or "spiritualist".
quote: Oh, yes...I'm curious...are you a brazilian guy living abroad or are you an American who lived here for a long time (or took the pains to learn the beautiful but complex language there is portuguese)?
I am an American. I lived in Brazil for two years while I was serving a mission for the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). I enjoy speaking and reading Portuguese so I have done what I can to develop my language skills. I also ended up married to a Brazilian so of course I keep up my speaking skills.
quote: And...why "Jacare Sorridente"?
No real reason. I just wanted to choose a pseudonym that reflects something of who I am, so I chose a Portuguese name since much of who I am is related to things Brazilian; I chose Jacare because it is an animal capable of defending itself and I chose Sorridente because I generally try to be friendly.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’m a liberal protestant with Eastern Orthodox tendencies. Theologically I’m a Tillichian Wesleyan, ecclesiologically I lean toward the Anglican, and denominationally I’m a United Methodist. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It was a landmark some time ago. I think for my next land mark, I'll do more.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I guess I would be "kardeckian spiritist", then. I didn't realize there were the words "spiritist" and "spiritualist", in english (in portuguese, we have "espírita" and "espiritualista". In this case, we use the first. Spiritualists are new age types, I guess).
Here in Brazil we have many "spiritist" sects, most of them derived from african traditions, as Umbanda and Candomblé (some people call those 'macumba'). Kardeckian spiritism is european in origin. The founder was a frenchman called Alan Kardec. Basically, we believe in Jesus and the bible, but we also believe that we reincarnate many times in this (and others) world(s) to better ourselves trough time. We do not have priests, but sensitive people who can "talk to dead people" who have not, yet, reincarnated (sometimes souls get lost, for a time, and we must help them, or 'enlightened souls' are allowed to teach a little, before reincarnate again). There are much more, of course.
Hope you won't find this too weird and we can all still be friends. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
(You're lucky that you have a way to keep up your Portuguese Jacare. I feel mine slipping away all the time.)
Same goes for me Eduardo. I spent 19 months no estado lindo de SP as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This makes me a Momron too. (that one's for you Hobbes.) Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Narnia, guess it makes you an honorary "paulista", hehehe.
I, myself, am a "Carioca" (someone who was born in Rio de Janeiro, the "Cidade Maravilhosa").
Hey, I've been reading a lot about LDS, on this forum. Do any of you know if there is a church in Rio de Janeiro?
As I already told you, I'm very curious about other religions. LDS is a little unknown here where I live. I've already visited many churches and temples of some 20 or more religions, I guess, but no momron (as Hobbes says) church.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Eduardo- there are most defintiely a large number of churches in Rio. Here is a list of the ones inside the city:
We can all be friends and stuff. Anyone's beliefs seem weird to those who don't share those beliefs, but that's OK. I think everyone is at least somewhat weird.
Narnia- what mission did you serve in?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I'm sure that there is a church in Rio de Janeiro.
You can also read more about the LDS beliefs at this website (and they even have it in Portugese ).
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Here in France there are a lot of Catholics (I will actually marry one , so if you have any question about catholicism I may be able to answer) but I for myself believe in God but am not in a particular religion.
[ October 28, 2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Anna: I (most brazilians are) was born a Catholic. My whole family is catholic ;-))
Jacare: Nice! There is a LDS Church only 5 minutes from my home. I know the street (although I do not remember the church). Well, maybe I will pay it a visit, hehehe (wow! One more!) - The services are spoken in english?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Thank you Ludo, your link is very intersting !
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Eduardo I didn't realize that.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Anna: no prob.
Brazil is the largest catholic country in the world. Although many people follow african-derived religions (as Candomblé, or Umbanda), more than 77% of the people are Catholic.
We have about 160 million people over here, so there are some 123 million catholic brazilians.
Yup...vatican still have clout here, although so caled neo-pentecostal protestant churches have grown a lot in the latest 20 or so years.
Hope you found that interesting. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm a nothing. I don't have a religion, but I'm interested in them all.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I'm just a Christian.
...okay, okay, I belong to the church of Christ.
...and yes, I think you're all going to hell! Nyah nyah nyah!!
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Eduardo...nice to meet you! When I was in university I took a world religions class that approached that subject by looking at the religions of Brazil. (My professor had spent several years in Brazil as a Mennonite Brethren missionary, so she knew a lot about Brazil and it's wide variety of religions.)
We studied Kardec and Spiritism, as well as Candomble and Umbanda and the different manifestations of Christianity in Brazil. Spiritism struck me as being very different from the Afro-Brazilian religions such as Camdomble and Umbanda. We read a book about Spiritism, called "Samba in the Night: Spiritism in Brazil", by David J. Hess. He is an American who went to Brazil and studied all about Spiritism. I assume that his book was fairly accurate, but I would love to hear more about your beliefs - from what we learned, it is a very interesting religion.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I'm Lutheran.
(sighs and makes ready to perpetuate Midwestern Lutheran stereotypes)
So, who wants bars, I made them for our church potluck! I would have made lutefisk, but I ran out of lye...
[ October 28, 2003, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I'm a recovering Catholic.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I'm an Orthodox Jew. I'm also agnostic.
I majored in religion in college, concentrating in Christianity.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Cool! I minored in Theology!
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Really? Wasn't it fun? (I assume you majored in education?)
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I enjoyed it! It was a great middle ground between philosophy and history. I was not an education major, but I am a teacher, fwiw.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
I was baptized, raised, and confirmed Roman Catholic, but my father is Methodist, so I've been taught the beliefs of both religions. My parents have always told me I could believe in whatever religion I wanted to, but I don't have that many arguments with the Catholic faith.
Bit of background for you non-Catholics: When Catholics 'confirm their baptismal promises'--basically, when they embrace Catholicism--they take a saint name. So, technically, my full name is Mayday Desaix Nicholas. I'm a big girl who likes to buy presents for people. Mwahahahaha.
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
I come from catholic family background - but wasn't raised catholic. Our country (Slovakia) is predominantly catholic!!! But as for me, I am a christian, just christian.
If you want to know the church - Church of Christ Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I'm Jewish *dances* Posted by Liquor and Fireworks (Member # 5785) on :
I'm a mormon.
I can't think of anything funny or random to say maybe I need sleep.
[ October 29, 2003, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: Liquor and Fireworks ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
pretty much Fundamentalist Christian (Bible Church)
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I was born in the Baptist bible belt of Nova Scotia and my atheist parents went out of their way to expose me to religion. But in the end, like father like son, I do not believe in God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm a recovered Catholic and a former Baha'i, now agnostic.
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
I was raised catholic but have not been a very active participant for a few years now. I have felt a bit unfulfilled by the masses and customs and just haven't made any real efforts to find something that hits me any stronger.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mormon by birth and conviction, with Mormon, Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, and agnostic relatives.
[ October 29, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Child of a Catholic and a Congregationalist.
Now, ostensibly a member of a Congregationalist church in the UCC (United Church of Christ). You know, the crazy, quite possibly heretical, lefty Christians
Macc, are you a member of an instrumental or non-instrumental church?
-Bok
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Littlemiss:
"Samba in the Night"...no, I can't say I know this book. Could you send me the bibliography?
Well...what would you like to know about my religious beliefs? I find easier to answer questions about this than to dissertate
Hey, that's valid to you all. If you want to ask me something, just shoot it! Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Jacare, I served in the Campinas mission and trained in the SP MTC. I've been home almost 18 months now. I miss it, and I also sometimes miss being a missionary. There was some great benefits that came with that as I'm sure you are aware.
Eduardo, this is a neat and interesting thread. I love to learn stuff about my fellow jatraqueros. Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Me too, Narnia (being new here, and all...).
Hey, let me ask something to you, Jacare and other who were missionaries: how was it like? You are appointed to do so, or you choose the path? What does a missionary do? Did you like it?
I'm too curious for my own good Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
No that's totally cool!! Does anyone know where that missionary thread went? The one that described what LDS missionaries do?? I can't remember the name.
Anyway, in most cases, we choose to go on missions ourselves. We fill out some papers with medical info and personal stats and send them to church headquarters. Within a month or so, we find out to where we have been called. We believe that the call is inspired by God. Then usually after 3 months or so of getting prepared, we leave for the Missionary Training Center. I went to the one in Sao Paulo. There are other MTCs all over the world. We stay there for a few weeks, or two months if we have to learn another language. Then they ship us out to our separate missions! (We all pay for our own missions by the way, so it's not a free trip to somewhere cool. )
In the mission field as we call it, we work and live in pairs. Each pair of missionaries has a specific geographical area to work in. We knocked on doors, stopped people on the street, did service projects, taught English classes, helped other church members out when they needed it...lots of stuff. Our purpose is to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to anyone who wants to know more about it so that hopefully they will feel the truth of it for themselves and be baptized.
Throughout the time that we're there (18 months for the girls and 2 years for the guys) we switch areas and companions every few months or so. Each mission has a president over about 200 missionaries and he and his wife organize everything and keep things running smoothly. During a normal week or month though, we're pretty much on our own. We worked 9:30am to 9:30pm (but the members of the church provided almoco, so this was always a treat. )
For me, my mission was the hardest 19 months of my life, but it was so soul-changing and such an integral part of my spiritual and emotional growth. I met some fantastic and amazing people that I'm still in touch with today and had a sizzling tan for 2 years. My relationship with God and my family was strengthened tremendously and for the most part, I had a great time and was a happy camper.
This is just from and LDS missionary's perspective. I know others that have served missions for other denominations and I'd love to hear about what it was like for them. (We met a group of American Baptist missionaries in one of my areas and they were really cool. We were also on really good terms with a group of Jehovah's Witnesses in another area, so that was nice too.)
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Bok, I'm non-instrumental. To tell the truth, it seems like a rather picky detail sometimes, but on the other hand, worship is about God's preferences rather than ours, after all. If that's what he likes, that's what he gets from me.
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
Mormon, with relatives of all stripes. (You name it, we've got it!)
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare: Nice! There is a LDS Church only 5 minutes from my home. I know the street (although I do not remember the church). Well, maybe I will pay it a visit, hehehe (wow! One more!) - The services are spoken in english?
Actually the services are in Portuguese, though chances are good that there is at least one American missionary in any given church. I only mention that in case you want to practice your spoken English a bit. While I was in SP I ran into Brazilians from time to time who wanted to chat a bit in English just for the sake of practice.
At any rate, Narnia answered your question pretty well about what the missionaries do and how they get there. I'll just add a bit:
Mormon missionaries spend most of their time finding people to teach and teaching them a series of discussions on the basic beliefs of the curch. Eduardo- I think you might actually enjoy hearing a few of the discussions and contrasting them to your beliefs. For example, Mormons believe that we lived somewehere else before we were born and that we will live on one of several other worlds after we die.
Posted by Liquor and Fireworks (Member # 5785) on :
I think they recently stopped having guidelines for discussions and told the missionaries to teach what they are inspired to teach at each meeting. Anyone else hear about this?
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Interesting, Jacare. I really think that I will pay the church a visit very soon.
I did not know that mormons believe in reincartation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I didn't either.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*thwaps kat*
We don't Eduardo. However, we have very specific beliefs about life after death. (where are all of those mormonism threads??)
Those are just two, but some good reading and you'll learn a LOT about some fellow Jatraqueros. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My understanding of what "we" believe is that birth in a body is an enhancement over the spirits we were before birth, that prior to being a spirit we were an even more primitive form called an intelligence.
At death the spirit and the body are for a time separated (though we believe Moses and I think Elijah, among others, skipped death) but will be reunited in a permanent arrangement generally referred to as resurrection. We believe all people will be resurrected regardless of the kind of life they lived. And most will have an opportunity to continue improving. The only sin we cannot turn back from is denying the Holy Ghost. The scriptures teach that it is much easier to overcome addictions, lusts, and other kinds of carnal impediments in this life.
So the body is carnal and an enemy to God, but also essential to our progress toward becoming more like our Heavenly Parents. We don't believe a spirit lives more than one life on Earth. But we also don't necessarily believe that we go straight from death to a final assignment of station lasting for eternity.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I'm E-vil.™
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
I'm a former Baptist (general convention) daughter of a southern Baptist mother and an Assemblies of God preacher father. I'm a member (by choice!) of the churches of Christ --the same and very NOT the same as those of Macc. Fellow heretic of Lissande. Tzadik should know he's inching nearer the flames.
I'm very low church/non-charismatic in preference and practice. I'm working toward my M.Div in Old Testament (though currently my 'maybe-mentor' is trying to draw me off to New Testament) and bide my time as a part-time heretic.
However, if in the end I can wind up half as cool and collected as dkw, I'll consider myself pretty well enlightened.
Q.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I will sure read the mormon threads between classes, tomorrow. After all, that's why I started the thread. I'm very curious Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm a liberal fundamentalist Christian. The church I go to is not part of any denomination, but is reformed and evangelical. I'm always tempted to tell people I'm reformed, but I'm not sure what it means, and I haven't gotten anyone at church to explain it to me yet. I have a feeling that eventually I'm going to end up in one of those small churches that mainstream Christianity can't decide whether or not is actually Christian. I'm leaning towards Seventh Day Adventists, but all of the information I can find on them is really old and impossible to understand without a theology major. If anyone knows where I can get some good Seventh Day Adventist literature I would really appreciate it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why on EARTH would you lean towards the Seventh-Day Adventists? Do they have really good potluck at that particular church, or is somebody there really, really cute?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I'm just schizophrenic. . .
(joke, people, joke - )
Mormon family on the paternal side Roman Catholic on the maternal . . .
the LDS side won out over the who gets to take the grandkids to church until I was in my teens . . .
add in a murky ten years and somehow I ended up in an ELCA Lutheran church (for the last 10) while looking for an HIV/AIDS community fundraiser sing-a-long to Mozart's Requiem.
Go figure.
My pastor says I am an eclectic Christian since I borrow from Celtic pagan practices, Native American practices and put together multiple Christian proactices as I see fit. He hasn't kicked me out of the congregation yet, so it must be okay. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Well, that answers my questions about where in the world you were coming from, Quiara. Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
Q,
only have to be careful not to get burnt know nothing, what are you talking about???
an yes, have a nice day Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
For me, what I would like to know about LDS are their point of views on everyday life things, like contraception, homosexuality...
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I'm puzzled too, Tzadik. Q seems to be implying that I'm the one who'd consider her and Lissa heretical, and you close to it, but I know nothing of your beliefs beyond what you posted earlier. I didn't even know there was another of us here. For that matter, I don't even know much about their positions, only that they differ from me on something.
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
Maccabeus,
Yep, as a matter of fact, there's another one of us here I know, haven't posted a lot - try to do better job. As it is, I know almost nothing about where you stand as well. Didn't have a chance to read many of the posts yet.
What is heretical, after all? So, what do you want to know about me? Ask freely Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Raised Catholic, had a lot of questions without finding sufficient answers, flirted with various ideas, and now mostly believe in some sort of reincarnative process wherein -- like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day -- we relive the same life over and over and over again. I'm not sure whether this is punishment (by whom? for what?), a chance to better ourselves (again, by whom and for what?), or purely random expansion and contraction of matter/energy.
Regardless, I'm pretty sure I've done this many times before. I think sometimes I make different choices, but that's only going by gut feel. My rational mind is agnostic with a heavy flavoring of atheism.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Hey, Isn't Groundhog Day a nifty movie? I thought only me and OSC liked it! Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm pretty sure its a Revelation, but I'm still stuck on the from whom/for what part. Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Oh heck, Macc, I haven't even scratched the surface. I have, however, had a terrifying brush with orthodoxy lately; I think I may be permanently scarred. ^_~
Tzadik, we promote a harmless brand of heresy. I use the phrase tongue-in-cheek; we're not Marcionites or anything. Remember: Ultra-liberal/heretical c's of C are ultra-conservative anything else.
And Macc, the religious heritages I listed are only the last generation. My paternal granddad was a Methodist minister and his father was Lutheran clergy. Before that, they were Amish. Maternally, they get pentecostal/charismatic, but are generally some flavor of Baptist, usually Southern or Missionary.
Q.
[ October 30, 2003, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: asQmh ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Anna-
quote: For me, what I would like to know about LDS are their point of views on everyday life things, like contraception, homosexuality...
OK- contraception: there is no doctrine about it one way or the other. We think that having a family is one of the most important growth experiences one can have and that families can be the source of much happiness in this life. Some Mormons use no contraception, some do.
more later...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
CT, that's fascinating. I also believe that reincarnation occurs, although I've thought about it in different terms than you have. It's occurred to me that if sequential time is just a matter of perception, there is no reason why multiple incarnations of a person couldn't exist in what we perceive as the same time. In fact, we could all be one being, in much the same way that a ball of yarn appears to be composed of discrete loops of yarn, but is actually just one long length of yarn looped around itself.
I'm not saying that that's how it is, but it's occurred to me.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Pssht. I'd suggest the main place Q and I part ways with Maccabeus is over his willingness to make absolute, definitive and/or blanket statements about things on which there is no absolute, definitive and/or blanket doctrine or scriptural evidence to be had.
[ October 30, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Lissande ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Jacare, are you kidding ? Maybe because I'm used to catholicism, at last the way people live it here, I'm surprised by a religion who does not try to control every point of the life of the people who believe... Sounds great. Maybe with such a religion I could pass through my prejugees against congregations.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
And I'd suggest that Lissa is really a flaming heretic; she just doesn't want to admit it.
C'mon. I'll bet she even CLAPS to INSTRUMENTAL music! Heathen.
Q.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Now I'm really curious about this instrumental / non-instrumental thing. Maccabeus, would you mind elaborating on it? Particularly why you believe God prefers non? (Assuming that I interpreted your post correctly and that really is what you believe. Otherwise, please correct me.)
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Heheh. Now is the time for all good c of C'ers to adopt a true Hatrack attitude and ask if we're gonna discuss this for the umpteenth million time. . . ^_~
j/k. I'll let Macc give the instrumental/non-instrumental a stab and hold my mocking tongue. It's gonna make it awfully hard to talk today. . .
Q.
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
Am just about to leave for today. Can't wait to log on tomorrow morning and read all the posts about instrumental/non-instrumental churches.
later... Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
So this thing has been discussed before? I don't want to go resurrecting an undead thread, as they're called in some other places.
And Lissa, I couldn't catch you before to apologize, but I'm really not so quick to make blanket statements most of the time. I really was just trying to sum things up and was going to go into more detail only if the people I was talking to seemed interested. I'm sorry I got you riled.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Aww, Macc - I was just being a smart-aleck. The instrumental thing is to c of C discussion like homosexuality or who'll play Ender is to hatrack. ^_~
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would love to hear about the instramental/non-instramental distinction. Please post.
Mrs. M: I have a question, if you don't mind my asking. If you don't want to put it here, e-mail is fine.
How is it possible to be Orthodox Jew and agnostic at the same time? I mean, to practice Orthodox Judaism and be agnostic. Is it more than a system of beliefs, then? I'm thinking it would have to be, in order to still have meaning in the absense of belief. *thinks*
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Okay, Q. I was afraid that some people had had it out here and made nuisances of themselves.
Since Katharina and dkw have asked so nicely, I'll try to put down as balanced a view of the controversy as I can.
Historically the churches of Christ grew out of several movements to "restore" the church as it was in the first century; for different reasons, several different groups, mostly in America, came to believe that the traditional churches had become corrupt. However, their approaches were different from those of the LDS/Mormon church. These groups were trying to reconstruct the early church's practices out of evidence from the New Testament.
As it turns out, a good bit of the New Testament talks about corporate worship, and it was this corporate worship that seemed to have diverged the most from early church practices. So the Restorationist groups did their best to piece together what early Christian worship was like, allowing only what the Bible specifically referenced. (Unlike morality, which you can work out the broad strokes of from consequences, worship is presumably about God's aesthetic "likes and dislikes"; there are some symbolic elements that appeal to one human need or another, but no obvious common thread. And of course the various groups had other reasons--notably trying to get at a common background that everyone could agree on, which excluded a lot of sect-specific details.) On top of this, many of the first few churches were poor and didn't have the money for lots of ornamentation.
Out of this mix came the view that worship and places of worship should be simple--not necessarily austere, but not devoted to pleasing the eyes and ears of mere humans, either. And since the New Testament mentioned only the simple practice of singing, a lot of people concluded that God really didn't care for fancy instruments.
But eventually some of the churches began to get rich. And some of the old differences between the movements started to crop up as well. Some people began to suggest that a loose construction of the New Testament was better than a strict construction. How loose? Well, that depended on who was talking. One of the big debates was over whether or not instruments were really so bad. Another was about church organization. Some issues were small, but there were also people who went much farther, along the lines a lot of liberal Protestantism was going. Eventually we strict constructionists got riled and started backing away from the loose constructionists and saying they were dangerous. One of the biggest groups of loose constructionists very nearly turned their back on the restorationist ideal completely to pursue ecumenical unity and became known as the Disciples of Christ (one of the names the whole movement had gone by). Seeing where they were going, the smaller group of strict constructionists decided that they represented the danger of interpreting the Bible broadly. These became known as the Churches of Christ. While instrumental music might not seem all that important itself, it was a sort of symbolic issue that illustrated the troubles of loose constructionism, so it got a lot of emphasis.
Over the time, a lot of us in the churches of Christ got a bit ingrown, even paranoid. And we didn't all agree about what details of the Scripture were important, so there was a fair amount of infighting. But eventually we started to become respected by evangelicals, who were kind of like us but with a different emphasis, for our detailed knowledge of the Bible and our dedication. We made common cause with them on some public issues like, oh, abortion and such. Some of us started to admire the way they did things and wanted to be more like them. And some of us--including some really paranoid folks, but also some people who just didn't think all of the changes were a good idea--got worried again.
A fairly large number of churches of Christ nowadays think instruments are no big deal, just like evangelicals. And maybe--well, we conservative folks could be wrong. (The paranoid right wing won't even admit that.) But to us, instrumental music has become an example of a dangerous attitude toward the Bible, so we have been standing our ground.
There's my historical overview, gleaned from my reading of church history. It's kind of long, so thanks for reading if you got this far. This is just my understanding of the matter, so please don't take it as authoritative. (And I'm sure Lissande and Q have a different perspective on things, so listen to them too.) From my perspective, worship in a capella song has its benefits--like increased participation--that might be God's rationale, or it might just be a test of our willingness to obey. Or it might be a misinterpretation, but why take chances, even on the little things?
[ October 30, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Anna- it's true that the LDS church has no proscriptions on birth control. And not even an absolute proscription on abortion. It's a medical issue and people should make their choices based on medical science and seeking guidance from the Spirit. But saying only medically indicated abortions are recommended as opposed to whenever one chooses is pretty much a pro-life stance.
It is common for LDS members to think of homosexuality as worse than most other kinds of sexual sin, but I don't know how valid such a distinction is. It feels that way due to the political activism of the gay community. But the church has clarified a doctrine of gender being an immutable spiritual property, and so same sex attraction is viewed as a trial of mortality that should be overcome as much as possible. My personal view is that it is a lot like alcoholism.
[ October 30, 2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
To add to Macc's: The argument from scriptural silence, however, has never been a particularly good one in my opinion. Historically, one can make a better case of non-instrumental worship, but I'll probably defer to Lissa on that end of things.
The "why take a chance" argument is what got the Pharisees in trouble, Macc. . . we really ought to be careful there.
It's a nitpick, though, if you ask me. Particularly since the NT doesn't say we should have pews, a pulpit, or even a church building for that matter. All of these (including the oh-so-hallowed baptistry) are just as much an "innovation."
quote:--that might be God's rationale, or it might just be a test of our willingness to obey
Okay - this bugs me. For one, you can't say that God said it. . .and therefore the whole bit about its being a test of our willingness to obey assumes a heck of a lot. See? THIS, to me, is a dangerous attitude toward the Bible. Binding on others those things that just aren't.
Q.
[ October 30, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: asQmh ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks for the run-down! That was great. *feeling much more knowledgable now*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Wow, I was surprised that it was actually about musical instruments. In most LDS congregations you need to get special permission to use anything besides a piano or an organ, though I have seen guitars and brass trios in LDS meetings. A lot of policy of that sort is kind of made up on the local level.
You know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) church probably would have been named "Church of Christ" except you all beat us to the punch? I believe the church of the people in the Book of Mormon has that title.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
quote: (though we believe Moses and I think Elijah, among others, skipped death)
Pooka, if you don't mind my asking about this? Elijah, yes, was taken directly to Heaven. Moses, however, from what I have been taught as a non-LDS, died before entering the Promised Land because of his transgressions, although he was allowed to look on the land from its border.
Is there a different teaching in Mormon doctrine?
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
That's interesting. Deut. 34:7 says that Moses died at 120 years of age. Is there a separate LDS doctrine on that?
Posted by Chocodile (Member # 5857) on :
After ten years of struggling to figure out exactly what the truth is, Agnosticism was really the only choice. Some people tell me I'm being "too rational," and that Agnosticism is a "way out" of aruguing, thinking, or feeling. My religious beliefs are emotional, strong, and have a huge impact on my life.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Hmm. Q has pointed something out--the argument from silence. The classic "conservative viewpoint" has been that worship is about "thou shalts", not "thou shalt nots", and you don't do what you don't have a "thou shalt" for. If God doesn't talk about it at all, you don't do it.
For my own part, I never saw the relation between an instrument (on which you actually do something) and a pew or a songbook (which is just there). But a lot of people consider them the same thing and wonder why historically we've made a distinction. I don't understand that viewpoint very well myself. Oh, and I don't know that anyone has ever made a big deal out of a baptistry, Quiara.
Q also mentions the Pharisees, at which point I think I am traditionally supposed to bring up Nadab and Abihu, or maybe Uzzah, but I think I will skip that part. No point rehashing old worn-out arguments in front of other folks.
Pooka, we have been known to get into all kinds of strange arguments, despite all policy being in some sense formed at the local level. As for your name, hey, we have no particular objections to your using the name "Church of Christ". From some perspectives, we might even encourage it. (Some people have claimed it is "the Scriptural name". It isn't, though it is a Scriptural name.) Might cause confusion, though.
[Addit]For the record, unless it turns out that I have been fired (long story), I will go to bed when I get back from getting my paycheck and not get up till time for work. Then I'll sleep again when I get home, and I have family to visit tomorrow (it's my granny's birthday) and maybe a Halloween party if I can squeeze it in. So it may be a while before I can respond again.
[ October 30, 2003, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Sopwith-
This is from the Book of Mormon:
quote: Behold, this we know, that he was a righteous man; and the saying went abroad in the church that he was taken up by the Spirit, or buried by the hand of the Lord, even as Moses. But behold, the scriptures saith the Lord took Moses unto himself; and we suppose that he has also received Alma in the spirit, unto himself; therefore, for this cause we know nothing concerning his death and burial.
So basically the author is comparing the unconfirmed death of a prophet in his day to that of Moses.
Here is what Deuteronomy says:
quote: So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
The "he" in verse 6 refers to the Lord, I think. So the author states that Moses died and was buried by God. The passage cited from the Book of Mormon was likely written from information the author had from a Jewish lineage record which included the books of Moses, so perhaps there was further information there than in modern Deuteronomy.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Deuteronomy 32:50
quote: 50 There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. 51 This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites. NIV
Seems to say it pretty plainly.
Deuteronomy 34:5-7
quote: 5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him (footnote or he was buried ) in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.
I think I'll stick with Deuteronomy on this one. Doesn't seem to leave much room for interpretation. In the Old Testament, when they died, they died.
But why say Moses didn't die?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I always figured that part in the book of Mormon was Mormon reporting some local speculation - the urban legend of the day. He admits they don't know, but in a sort of "wouldn't it be nice" kind of way.
Added: It's little touches like that that are some of my favorite parts of the Book of Mormon. The leaders dealing with various members refusing to deal with the poorer members, or else creating prayer towers for everyone to watch them, or else the "bad guys" being the ones who are faithful and kind to their families. It's a nice dose of "the more things change, the more they stay the same." Mormon sticking in the bit about Moses not actually dying but being taken up by the Lord, but putting a disclaimer on it, feels like the sunday school teacher tossing his tie over his shoulder and telling a three-nephite story. Very human. I love it.
[ October 30, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Part of the point about Moses is that he was alone when he died. There were no witnesses to his death or his burial, and so nobody really knew. They assumed he had died, because he was all alone in the desert at the age of 120. And he may very well have died. But some people (among them, many Mormons) aren't so sure.
One reason has to do with the Mormon belief that tangible, physical bodies are important, and even required, for some things. Sometimes, for instance, God sends angelic messengers to do something that requires that the messenger have a physical body.
But before the resurrection of Christ, there was no resurrection at all. The only way around this was to have a messenger who had been a living person, but hadn't died. Instead, like Elijah, the person was "translated," or changed and taken physically into the presence of God without tasting death. As far as we know, this has always been an extremely rare occurrence.
In LDS theology we believe we know of handful of translated beings: Elijah and Enoch are the two most well-known, as well as all of the inhabitants of Enoch's city of Zion. Then there's the three Nephites and the apostle John, who are a special case and may not actually have been translated.
Back to Moses. He was sent as a messenger on at least one occasion before the resurrection of Jesus, at the Transfiguration. On that occasion, he appeared to Jesus, Peter, James and John. He was accompanied by Elijah, who was definitely translated. This makes a lot of Mormons think Moses probably was as well.
UofUlawguy
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Macc - just out of curiousity, what size is your church?
Q.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Q, assuming you mean my local congregation, the one I currently attend is somewhere over 200; the attendance figures aren't posted on the wall there. It's a college congregation, though. The main churches I grew up in hover around 50 (for my earliest years, and the one my family at home now attends) and 150 (the one my stepfather attended and that we went to for a good while until they started having trouble picking a good preacher).
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
guys, it is interesting to read the posts. Being new here, makes it hard to post - since I am not sure what y'all have posted before.
Back to the (non)-instrumental thing. I think we should also look and the historical context. What I mean is that there is enough evidence that back in NT times no music was used as part of worship - in contrast of pagan worship services, where music was used rather vehemently. In the works of the Apostolic fathers (according to my limited knowledge) we find no mention of the instrumental music used in worship of early Christians. We also know, that the instruments (such as organ) were not introduced into the church (and I mean predominantly catholic church) until sometime around 1000 AD, 1000 years after the church was established! Then, look at the Eastern orthodox churches (church of Russia, Greece etc.) Up till today they do not use instruments. We may and as a matter of fact should ask why? Could it be, that once the Eastern and Western church did split (Great schism) the Eastern churches stuck with no music, as it was for the first 1000 years and the western church started introducing music, then celibacy and all sorts of things? Something to think about.
I believe that we have enough historical evidence supporting the non-instrumental worship in the church.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Sure we have historical evidence (which, as I said, seems the better argument). However, like you said, it's a contrast to the pagan worship of the time. Can we say it's a preference of God when we can't find any dictum to back that up? Or is it a move by the early church to be what they were literally intended to be, "the called out ones"?
And as such, can we really say there's a call to non-instrumental worship today? I mean, heck, the only pagans I know are pretty acappella, not being prone to using organs or pianos.
Okay, so I'm being a little snarky. It's just that this seems to be a moot point. When we talk about the "Restoration" movement, what in the world are we trying to restore? The forms of worship found in the early church, the church of the first century, or do we want to restore what Christ prayed that the church would BE? It seems like we want to take the church at Rome or the church at Corinth and become them again. Well, we can't. They're dead. And reading the letter to the Romans and the letters to the Corinthians, I can't say that I'd even want to be those churches. They had some serious issues.
So much of what we in the Restoration movement get caught up in watchdogging each other about really seem like non-issues. Not worth all the divisiveness and disfellowshipping, that's for sure.
Personally, I think it's come down too much to being about what we like or dislike. Well, y'know what? I don't like the idea of hell, either, but I believe there is one. I don't like that Christ had to die for me, but I'm thankful he did. It's not about what I like or dislike, and we really need to sort that out before we go trying to pass off preference and caution as matters of doctrine.
Just my overbearing $0.02 of frustration,
Q.
[edited to add that this is largely addressed to fellow c of C'ers, that I'm not trying to press my views on anyone and that I don't expect others to start with the same set of assumptions (i.e. that God exists, that the Bible is his word, etc) that I do and that it's about more than 'other-ness']
[ October 31, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: asQmh ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"When we talk about the 'Restoration' movement, what in the world are we trying to restore?"
Unless the Churches of Christ make sure their members wear garments of natural fiber and unspun wool, and don't have any forged steel or polymers in any of their churches, we can safely assume that they don't take this restoration thing all that seriously.
Me, I don't understand the appeal; it sounds rather grim, humorless, and self-defeatingly nostalgic. But if your goal with any religion is to foster a sense of "other-ness," it probably does that pretty well.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
When did Christ or any of the New Testament writers mention unspun wool or natural fibers? The restoration movement (the specific historical 19th-century movement the churches of Christ came from, I mean) was never at attempt to restore biblical Judaism. You can criticize restorationists on various levels, but that particular argument doesn't hold water.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Plus, Paul kinda got on to some Christians for trying to restore Judaism. Okay, okay: for "judaizing" -,they got into more than a little trouble for trying to make people Jewish before they could be Christian: circumcision, holidays, the whole bit.
Q.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"When did Christ or any of the New Testament writers mention unspun wool or natural fibers?"
My point is that we know spun wool and polyester were not present at any early Christian service -- know this, in fact, with far more certainty than we know that instruments may or may not have been present. So if we're going to ban instrumentation because the Bible doesn't explicitly mention the presence of instruments, it logically follows that other things which must NOT have existed at the time ALSO be kept out of the ceremonies -- like, say, the English language.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Electric lighting would be right out as well.
And congregationists would probably need to leave their glasses, watches, zippered items, etc. at the door.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
But of course, such arguments could be refuted easily enough by claiming that while the use of musical instruments is directly related to the act of worshipping, the composition of the congregationalist's clothing, their light source, and their vision aids, and their method of keeping their clothes fastened are not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think deciding which acts are "essential to worship" is a purely arbitrary thing, don't you?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Of course it's arbitrary. That doesn't mean it's random.
We use music as worship. "Hymns of praise" and all that. We don't use lights or eyeglasses or shoes as worship.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But light, eyeglasses, and shoes all facilitate individual acts of worship -- like congregation, hymnal reading, and dancing -- in the same way that instruments facilitate music.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But the music doesn't fascilitate worship - it IS the worship.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
He obviously doesn't understand the question of the Restorationists. It isn't about going back to living standards, but worship practices. Clothing can be a serious question if under the right context. There is no hint of the elaborate cloaks worn by many Catholic Priests, or the black suits of Mennonites as worship necessities. According to pictures of the second and third century, worshippers wore simple white tunics with only traces of elaberations.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Tom and Noemon, we know from the way Christianity spreads as recorded in the Scriptures that there was a good deal of cultural variation between churches. Jews, Greeks, Romans, Galatian Celts, and a wide variety of other ethnicities had members who accepted Christ. It hardly seems that they were all required to take on a single cultural identity, or that the spread could have continued if they were--and we know that they were not required to become Jewish, the most likely possibility if a cultural shift were necessary. On the other hand, there must have been similarities between congregations or they would have been mutually unrecognizable. The business of a serious restorer is to work out what is intrinsic to the religion and what was simply a carryover from someone's culture. In the process, naturally mistakes will be made; nonetheless, some things are more obvious than others.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Nevermind, I learned about Seventhday Adventists and decided I'm not one. Now I just have to figure out what I am.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
My beliefs are inchoate and hard to explain--I'll post something on that in the next couple of days.
quote: like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day -- we relive the same life over and over and over again. I'm not sure whether this is punishment (by whom? for what?), a chance to better ourselves (again, by whom and for what?), or purely random expansion and contraction of matter/energy.
ClaudiaTherese, that's a fascinating belief. Belief in reincarnation is one thing, but yours is a very evolved working-out of it. What do you base that on, just feelings? Also, the book Replay deals with these themes you are talking about, similarly to Groundhog Day but of course more serious. I liked that book immensely, and feel it has been unjustly over-looked. I read it several times, of course.
quote: It's occurred to me that if sequential time is just a matter of perception, there is no reason why multiple incarnations of a person couldn't exist in what we perceive as the same time. In fact, we could all be one being, in much the same way that a ball of yarn appears to be composed of discrete loops of yarn, but is actually just one long length of yarn looped around itself.
Philosophers (Hindus? I know next to nothing about Hinduism) and science fiction writers have explored this and similar themes, including Heinlein. If sequential time is only an illusion, its also possible that our individual consciousnesses flit from event to unconnected event disjointedly and non-sequentially without any awareness on our part, and the "operating system" of the Universe supplies context and continuity, like a computer OS taking care of all the number-crunching and memory management with out the human user knowing or caring what's going on in the background. Except for hackers. I think Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five has this as a theme, but I've never read it, only seen parts of the good but confusing movie.
One of the nuttier 20th century physical/cosmological theories involved the idea that the Universe in it's entirity could consist of one particle, possibly an electron endlessly shuttling back and forth through time and space, with the illusion of 10^78 particles somehow generated via hidden quantum effects. It is implied or supported by unexplained time symmetries in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity equations, quantum mechanics and maybe Maxwell's electomagnetic equations as well. But nobody really believes its true, as far as I know. If is true, I call dibs. Hey, you kids get off my electron!!
[ November 02, 2003, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
katharina,
Can you explain what you mean by saying "The music IS worship?"
would like to know on what scriptural foundation you base this declaration.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Noemon, that's intriguing. Sort of a space-time worm over four dimensions, with 3D plane slices through the "ball of yarn"? What brought this to your mind?
I have had more episodes of "deja'vu to the nth power" feelings than I can count. I.e., "I've remembered remembering this before, over and over again," like a long reflected hallway of mirrors. The power of those feelings to shape my understanding of the world is one of the main reasons I can't fault irrational faith. At least, I can't look down on it in others.
Morbo, that's pretty much where the conviction came from for me. I like the One Electron theory, though. "One nation, under The Electron, indivisible ..." Puts a whole new spin on patriotism, eh? Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You should read Replay, CT. If I can dig it up I could mail it to you, or give it to someone who comes to Wenchcon to pass it on. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I will! I've already made a note, Morbo. Thanks. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
T,
I'm not getting from scripture, but from the hymns. The words of the hymns of praise and the participation of the congregation. For many modern congregations, the music (especially on Sundays on which the Euchrist is not served) is one of the few participatory parts of the service. It's one of the reasons people come together - to sing as a group. So, it's part of the worship.
It's like prayer - whether or not you pray by candle or lightbulb doesn't seem essential, but how you address your formal prayers (kneeling and saying "Dear Lord" as opposed to, say, kicking back in a chair, putting your feet on the desk and thinking, "Yo - God-dude") does.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But how are you qualified to judge, kat? Surely the decision that musical instruments are more important than lightbulbs is founded on nothing but our gut feelings and scriptural assumptions -- and if we're going by gut feelings and scriptural assumptions, what's the POINT of Restorationism?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not the instraments - the music. Singing in church is like prayer - an integral part of the service. Hymns of praise. Songs unto the Lord. "Rock of ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in thee." That's addressing the Lord.
The instraments part I don't know about, but there is definitely a case for the form of music being like prayer - a part of worship and personal address about which the Lord could justly have an opinion - rather than like electricity.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
But unless you believe God's nature changed between the Old and New Testament how can you read the Psalms and believe that God doesn't approve of instruments used in worship?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: unless you believe God's nature changed between the Old and New Testament
I would seem that one would have to believe that either the bible is flawed, or god did change from an angry activist god, to a loving isolationist god. But of course, since the bible states god to be perfect, he must also be un-changing. It is not possible to be more-perfect.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you asking me? I don't think that. Based on their premise, though (wanting to return to form described in New Testament, relying only on New Testament to do so), the answer to the debate is not axiomatic.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Rob, you are assuming that there is a single "perfect" state and that any change would have to be from better to worse or vice versa. I am not sure that is the case.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Macc, that is my assumption. I would qualify it with the idea that due to God's foreknowledge of all time and events, for he/she/it to change over time, based on what people do, would seem to be an indication of less than perfect knowledge, or a fundamental change in the "values" of God.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I am not too certain about perfect foreknowledge either. At the moment I am looking toward what is sometimes called "open theism". Ever heard of it?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
No, is there a link you can drop?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I'm having trouble finding one that isn't strongly against it. There is an organizational site for it but it is under reconstruction at the moment.
Here's a very comprehensive anti-open-theism site: Open Theism. I haven't yet looked it over in detail, but it seems to be from a Calvinist point of view which I have little sympathy with.
Worth noting: open theism is not a doctrinal position espoused by the churches of Christ as a group, although sometimes individuals such as T.W. Brents have spoken out in favor of it.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Thats a very interesting concept. It certainly seems much more reasonable than most organized religions' views of God. It would seem that as humans gain more and more understanding about the world and the laws that govern it, they revise their view of God. I cannot help but think that this all leads to the ultimate revision, he does not exist. Of course I am not here to convince you of this, I am merely curious about people's views on this trend.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Rob, naturally I expect humans to revise their view of God, as we certainly are not all-knowing. Our knowledge of him is limited to what he chooses to reveal, so of course there are many points on which we must make guesses. I don't see any reason why this revision should necessarily lead to a rejection of God's existence, though it seems the anti-open-theism folks tend to agree.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I feel mine slipping away all the time.)![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Q, ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
know nothing, what are you talking about??? ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)