posted
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. ^_~
Posts: 499 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's interesting. Deut. 34:7 says that Moses died at 120 years of age. Is there a separate LDS doctrine on that?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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']
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Electric lighting would be right out as well.
And congregationists would probably need to leave their glasses, watches, zippered items, etc. at the door.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think deciding which acts are "essential to worship" is a purely arbitrary thing, don't you?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nevermind, I learned about Seventhday Adventists and decided I'm not one. Now I just have to figure out what I am.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!!
posted
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? Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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.![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
