Kind-of changing the way I look at religion

[Aubrey]

Bear w/ me. My analogies are crazy, but I'm sincere.

 

I've always imagined there to be this Truth ball. You seek it. Sometimes you find bits of Truth in places, but if it's not the whole absolute Truth, you keep looking.

 

I believe the Truth is Jesus--I'm not questioning that part, but I don't think you have to agree to discuss the following.

 

So in seeking the Truth ball that is Jesus, I have also looked for a church/denomination. I've never found one that I agree w/ completely, although there are quite a few that don't bother me, as far as the big issues go. Now, of course, we don't necessarily agree on the big issues, & some of the things that are big to them are hard for me to ignore, esp if they're a sign-on-the-dotted-line type of place.

 

In my Aubrey-head, I can't find a place to fit. But if I back up & look at the broad landscape of Christianity, I see a particular group (w/in which there are more subsets, lol) w/ which I very much fit, as far as culture & day-to-day life. I have friends across the board, but the nitty-gritty of life seems to have more in common w/ one group. I admire them, respect them, etc.

 

Dh argues that they're not all this way. True, but due to various circumstances including homeschooling, the ones I meet are almost 100% ones I admire. (I hope you're following.)

 

So I have begun to wonder if I shouldn't split my Truth ball in two. Jesus & my own faith on the one hand; community, culture, churchlife on the other. They should *generally* mesh, but I'd no longer feel compelled to find something that I agreed w/ completely OR to squish myself into a belief system that doesn't fit at the moment (I'm open to being changed, of course).

 

It makes me think of Paul telling people to follow him as he follows Christ. These are people I could see following in that way. At this point, I don't agree w/ them on everything, but I respect their beliefs, if that makes sense & agree w/ them on the things we both agree are the *most* essential.

 

Of course...it's a little different to follow a group of people who are making common sets of life choices rather than specifically following a set doctrine, theology, or denomination. It's possible that it's a step toward one of those more concrete perspectives, but at this point, it's the best I can do & something I think I could be comfortable w/. (Not to imply that I think anything is about my comfort--I hope you understand.)

[Carol in Cal.]

For me, the truth is still the most important, but the other follows and is crucial as well. And I parse what I do about that differently because of children. I attended a church whose people I liked and whose practices I didn't for a very long time. Teachings were pretty OK, but not quite right.

 

What drove me to change, after having been dissatisfied for many years, is thinking about raising my DD there. That changed the whole view and my priorities, a lot.

 

I think it's first the teachings, second the church services (as the most visible, implemented form of the teachings), and third the people and other practices. At least for now.

[Scarlett]

In my Aubrey-head, I can't find a place to fit. But if I back up & look at the broad landscape of Christianity, I see a particular group (w/in which there are more subsets, lol) w/ which I very much fit, as far as culture & day-to-day life. I have friends across the board, but the nitty-gritty of life seems to have more in common w/ one group. I admire them, respect them, etc.

 

:) I love your Aubrey-head.....

 

Let me see if I understand. You like a group of people who happen to belong to a certain religion....but you don't agree with all of their religious teachings? But you want to be like them? You feel comfortable around them...more comfortable than you feel around OTHER groups of people from OTHER religions...religions that you also do not completely agree with.

[Aubrey]

For me, the truth is still the most important, but the other follows and is crucial as well. And I parse what I do about that differently because of children. I attended a church whose people I liked and whose practices I didn't for a very long time. Teachings were pretty OK, but not quite right.

 

What drove me to change, after having been dissatisfied for many years, is thinking about raising my DD there. That changed the whole view and my priorities, a lot.

 

I think it's first the teachings, second the church services (as the most visible, implemented form of the teachings), and third the people and other practices. At least for now.

 

What if you didn't agree w/ anyone's teachings? Willing to admit that that must mean you're wrong about *something* but unable to conclude on your own what it is--like a Sudoku puzzle gone wrong w/out an answer sheet at the back to help you start over?

 

ETA: I do not believe that Mary was sinless. I do not believe in telling people they are going to hell. I understand the tradition and the Scripture supporting each doctrine, & I do not claim that I'm *right* & other people should think like me, but I cannot honestly agree to either.

 

These are not the only things I have issue with, but between these two, I think I've summarized most of Christendom. ;)

Edited May 6, 2011 by Aubrey

[Aubrey]

:) I love your Aubrey-head.....

 

Let me see if I understand. You like a group of people who happen to belong to a certain religion....but you don't agree with all of their religious teachings? But you want to be like them? You feel comfortable around them...more comfortable than you feel around OTHER groups of people from OTHER religions...religions that you also do not completely agree with.

 

Yes, but all w/in Christianity. I mean, I like a lot of non-Christians quite a lot, but faith-wise, I'm pretty convinced about the Jesus part.

 

I'm ok w/ saying we don't have to all agree about everything. I'm *very* open to listening to & having my mind changed by thoughtful, intelligent, non-belligerent people. And for my day-to-day life, a certain set of minor doctrines come up more often & therefore make me more comfortable/challenged (in an odd combination) by a particular set of people. I'd like to just be one of them, because it seems more expedient to me. But that's different, really, from true conversion. Not at all insincere, just...well, odd.

[SnowWhite]

VERY interesting thought. I am in a similar conundrum. Dh is in favor of NOT splitting the Truth ball in half (ie, keep the ball together and preserve it in our home, so that our children have access to a completely untouched ball of truth). I am thinking we need to let people be people (IOW, imperfect, not likely to agree with us on everything, or even many things and yet important to our walk as fellowship and brothers and sisters in Christ). I think we can overcome the differences with the purity of the Truth in our own lives and teaching at home.

[Scarlett]

These are not the only things I have issue with, but between these two, I think I've summarized most of Christendom. ;)

 

Hmmmm.....not the religion to which I belong. Both of those are believed by my religion to be unscriptural.

 

Keep looking Aubrey.

[Scarlett]

And for my day-to-day life, a certain set of minor doctrines come up more often & therefore make me more comfortable/challenged (in an odd combination) by a particular set of people. I'd like to just be one of them, because it seems more expedient to me. But that's different, really, from true conversion. Not at all insincere, just...well, odd.

 

How do THEY feel about that?

[Geek]

Hmmmm.....not the religion to which I belong. Both of those are believed by my religion to be unscriptural.

 

Keep looking Aubrey.

Scripture Only isn't scriptural.

[Scarlett]

Scripture Only isn't scriptural.

 

Huh?

 

Oh, wait. I see. But I didn't say Scripture Only.

[Geek]

Huh?

 

Oh, wait. I see. But I didn't say Scripture Only.

You implied it.

 

Hmmmm.....not the religion to which I belong. Both of those are believed by my religion to be unscriptural.

 

Keep looking Aubrey.

You instructed her to keep looking because the examples she gave weren't scriptural. I am assuming that finding something to be scriptural (or not) is your litmus test. Is there something I'm missing here?

[Aubrey]

VERY interesting thought. I am in a similar conundrum. Dh is in favor of NOT splitting the Truth ball in half (ie, keep the ball together and preserve it in our home, so that our children have access to a completely untouched ball of truth). I am thinking we need to let people be people (IOW, imperfect, not likely to agree with us on everything, or even many things and yet important to our walk as fellowship and brothers and sisters in Christ). I think we can overcome the differences with the purity of the Truth in our own lives and teaching at home.

 

This is dh. But then we fall into one of our long, dark theological disputes. I say "protestant" & mean non-Catholic. I see 2 basic parts, w/ subsets.

 

He sees 4 parts: Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, & I think the 4th is Charismatic. For some reason, this breakdown makes me :banghead:

 

He was raised in a very protestant denomination, accd to both of our definitions & met the Lord in an evangelical church. I was raised more evangelical, & so...I think he fails to see some things about that place. Of course, to be fair, he thinks the same about me. :lol:

 

One thing I'm sure of: I'm not evangelical. And he says to me darkly, "I know." :lol:

[OLG]

I do not believe that Mary's mother was a virgin.

 

Just for clarification, I know of no religion that claims Mary's mother was a virgin. THe Roman Catholic church teaches that Mary was conceived without sin not that her mother was a virgin. Seems you could eliminate that stumbling block!

[Aubrey]

How do THEY feel about that?

 

I think the really devout ones would be quite stony-faced about that. Since they seem to run the gamut, though, & the ones I've known have had minor issues that they questioned, too, I think it would be ok. You know...I hope.

[Aubrey]

Just for clarification, I know of no religion that claims Mary's mother was a virgin. THe Roman Catholic church teaches that Mary was conceived without sin not that her mother was a virgin. Seems you could eliminate that stumbling block!

 

*delete* Huh. You're right.

 

Well, the sinlessness of Mary is also on my list. Sorry to pass around misinformation!

[Avila]

Just for clarification, I know of no religion that claims Mary's mother was a virgin. THe Roman Catholic church teaches that Mary was conceived without sin not that her mother was a virgin. Seems you could eliminate that stumbling block!

 

:iagree: Mary was allowed a special grace of not being born with original sin because she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus. But that doesn't mean her mother was a virgin.

[Pax]

I'm putting on my flame proof suit here.

 

I found for myself that there were certain truths I could not bend on and certain truths I could. There was no way I was going to find a religion that fit me totally, that I could agree to 100%. Not a chance, except for UU and the local one didn't provide the type of community I needed for my family. I went looking for a community for my family and going through my knowledge of the main ideas for certain religions, I picked the few that seemed to be most in tune with my truths and attended various churches. When I found the church that seemed to be the best fit, I sat down with the pastor and explained where I was at. He strongly supported me questioning and seeking truth, which was how I knew I was where I needed to be.

 

The religion I picked has a belief in participation in the community, the deep search for divine guidance, and the attempt to live faithfully in harmony with that guidance are of utmost importance and that outward statements of belief are an insufficient basis for a life of faith. We aim at an inward knowledge of the Spirit - both individually and together. The core of our faith is our living relationship with and obedience to God, not merely the rote recitation of creeds or performance of rituals.

 

I'm taking off the suit now....

[Scarlett]

You implied it.

 

I don't think I did. In fact, that line of thinking is so far from what I believe that I actually responded 'huh?'

 

 

 

You instructed her to keep looking because the examples she gave weren't scriptural. I am assuming that finding something to be scriptural (or not) is your litmus test. Is there something I'm missing here?

 

If I believe something is unscriptural I won't be supporting it. Aubrey said SHE feels those two teachings are not supported by scripture, but that all of Christendom teaches them. I said not all. My implication was only that perhaps there IS a religion out there that she would agree with completely.

[SonshineLearner]

So, I'm confused, and just a bit curious. Do you say, believe in the Apostle's Creed? (1st AC for clarification) I'm wondering if you're changing what you believe about Theology? (Meaning the The study of the nature of God and religious belief) And... btw.... I have friends who are Charismatic Catholics :)

[Aubrey]

I'm putting on my flame proof suit here.

 

I found for myself that there were certain truths I could not bend on and certain truths I could. There was no way I was going to find a religion that fit me totally, that I could agree to 100%. Not a chance, except for UU and the local one didn't provide the type of community I needed for my family. I went looking for a community for my family and going through my knowledge of the main ideas for certain religions, I picked the few that seemed to be most in tune with my truths and attended various churches. When I found the church that seemed to be the best fit, I sat down with the pastor and explained where I was at. He strongly supported me questioning and seeking truth, which was how I knew I was where I needed to be.

 

The religion I picked has a belief in participation in the community, the deep search for divine guidance, and the attempt to live faithfully in harmony with that guidance are of utmost importance and that outward statements of belief are an insufficient basis for a life of faith. We aim at an inward knowledge of the Spirit - both individually and together. The core of our faith is our living relationship with and obedience to God, not merely the rote recitation of creeds or performance of rituals.

 

I'm taking off the suit now....

 

I hope you don't need the suit for this post. I can't imagine what would upset anyone in this.

[Scarlett]

*delete* Huh. You're right.

 

Well, the sinlessness of Mary is also on my list. Sorry to pass around misinformation!

 

I just now realized what your post said....now I am confused....what do you believe/not about Mary?

[chiguirre]

I do not believe that Mary's mother was a virgin. I do not believe in telling people they are going to hell. I understand the tradition and the Scripture supporting each doctrine, & I do not claim that I'm *right* & other people should think like me, but I cannot honestly agree to either.

 

Are you sure about those positions? I know that neither is the RC view and they don't ring true of EO either (but I'm sure someone who does know will answer).

 

On your broader issue, I think you'll feel most comfortable raising your children in the way that you were raised unless you have a very pressing disagreement with that tradition. It's just a whole lot easier to be able to share your experiences if your children's are similar.

[Aubrey]

So, I'm confused, and just a bit curious. Do you say, believe in the Apostle's Creed? (1st AC for clarification) I'm wondering if you're changing what you believe about Theology? (Meaning the The study of the nature of God and religious belief) And... btw.... I have friends who are Charismatic Catholics :)

 

I was not raised in a church that liked creeds, so I'm pasting below, because I had to look it up to check & see.

 

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,

the Maker of heaven and earth,

and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

yes

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,

born of the virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, dead, and buried;

yes

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

yes

He ascended into heaven,

and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;

from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

yes--depending on the implications of "judge"

I believe in the Holy Ghost;

the holy catholic church;

the communion of saints;

the forgiveness of sins;

the resurrection of the body;

and the life everlasting.

 

Amen.

 

Yep. I don't see anything here that would be a problem for most churches, though.

[Aubrey]

I just now realized what your post said....now I am confused....what do you believe/not about Mary?

 

I misremembered what I read about the Immaculate Conception a few years ago. Or read something wrong or something.

 

So I was wrong when I stated that some churches believe that Mary's mother was a virgin. But I do not believe that she was sinless. (Because if God could give *her* special grace, He could do that for all of us, & Jesus' death would have no meaning.)

[SonshineLearner]

He descended into hell. (is actually part of the newer one, I believe :))

 

And here's an interesting thought, "Do you not believe he will judge?" What do YOU believe the Bible says about Judgment? Do you not believe there is or will be a divide? Is there no end difference in the ones who follow Christ and do not?

[kokotg]

I think there are a number of denominations that are of the "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty" school of thought. I like my Disciples of Christ church because questioning and disagreement is actively encouraged. The UCC is the same way.

[Aubrey]

Are you sure about those positions? I know that neither is the RC view and they don't ring true of EO either (but I'm sure someone who does know will answer).

 

On your broader issue, I think you'll feel most comfortable raising your children in the way that you were raised unless you have a very pressing disagreement with that tradition. It's just a whole lot easier to be able to share your experiences if your children's are similar.

 

1. No, I edited the original statement. PP corrected me.

 

2. In my family, no one who was raised in this denomination has stayed with it. In fact, although my mom & my bro returned to the faith, no one else has even remained a Christian. I don't like those odds for my kids, & I find myself constantly having to buffer what they're taught.

 

Now, as to the latter, I think that to some extent, that's my job as a parent, & obviously that's not going to go away by going to another church that I also disagree with. So this isn't really a solid answer to anything. Just an idea of a new way to look at a problem.

[Aubrey]

I think there are a number of denominations that are of the "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty" school of thought. I like my Disciples of Christ church because questioning and disagreement is actively encouraged. The UCC is the same way.

 

But what they think is essential differs from church to church & tends to be a problem for me.

[milovany]

I've never found one that I agree w/ completely

 

Let's start here (okay, at least this is where we started when we began our conversion process). Why do we think we have to find a church that we agree with? It's like saying we have to find a Savior we agree with. He's either the Savior or He's not. The church is either the church -- or it's not. Why limit the Body of Christ to our own understanding? I realize not everyone processes it this way, and that's fine. But what a relief it was when I realized I didn't have to figure all this out! The church didn't have to make sense to me, it just IS. And I have to decide if I want to be a part of it or not. It's pretty humbling to come up against something that hits us "wrong" and realize it's US that might be wrong.

 

Now I realize this all assumes that we can find the tangible church that Christ started -- and not everyone believes that's possible. But for us we realized that nothing is impossible with God and His original church still exists in its designed purity and fullness (the people aren't pure and whole, Lord have mercy on us all, but Christ's Body, the Church, is). We ended up asking ourselves, if this church does still exist, why would we not be a part of it?

 

ETA -- I know you have looked at this same church and found it wanting, so I'm not addressing that; I'm just focusing on the above quote in the thinking-it-through process.

Edited May 6, 2011 by milovaný

[TheAutumnOak]

I have a question to ask...

 

Where in the Bible does it say that Mary has no sin?...I have never read that or anythig that would lead me to believe that, so I wonder why others think that...The Bible says all have sinned but Jesus himself...

 

Please read this with a respectful tone, as I am not trying to be disrespectful, just wondering where this teaching comes from...

[SonshineLearner]

....(Because if God could give *her* special grace, He could do that for all of us, & Jesus' death would have no meaning.)

 

But here's the deal, he could do as he chooses, because He is God. But, I do believe she was chosen to be Jesus' mother, and yet she had sin... but He was born without. God is not with the limitations that are placed on humanity. He is the Creator.

[Aubrey]

He descended into hell. (is actually part of the newer one, I believe :))

 

And here's an interesting thought, "Do you not believe he will judge?" What do YOU believe the Bible says about Judgment? Do you not believe there is or will be a divide? Is there no end difference in the ones who follow Christ and do not?

 

I think judgment is complicated. On the one hand, we have all sinned. On the other hand, His blood, His grace covers all. What shall separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus?

 

I tend to think that judgment will not look the way we expect, & I hesitate to agree to something when I know that the person saying it is understanding it in a particular way w/ which I might not fully agree, although the technical meaning of the words themselves are absolutely fine w/ me.

 

For ex, one could say that my dh is living with a married woman. This is true, but the *implication* of it is not--he's not having an affair; he's living with the woman that HE married. :lol:

 

So I hesitate to fully agree w/ the statement about the judgment because I do not necessarily hear it the same way that, say, a Baptist does.

[milovany]

So I was wrong when I stated that some churches believe that Mary's mother was a virgin.

 

Both EO and RC (and I think others) believe in the ever-virginity of Mary herself, based on both Scripture and Holy Tradition, if that's what you're thinking of?

[Spy Car]

I misremembered what I read about the Immaculate Conception a few years ago. Or read something wrong or something.

 

So I was wrong when I stated that some churches believe that Mary's mother was a virgin. But I do not believe that she was sinless. (Because if God could give *her* special grace, He could do that for all of us, & Jesus' death would have no meaning.)

 

You may have been confused because while it is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church [and in Catholicism that is what matters] there are individual Catholics who advance the argument that if Mary was without sin then her conception--like that of Jesus--must have been a virginal miracle. With the difference that her "parentage" was only "human" and not divine.

 

This is a minority view, and not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, but it does explain how you might have been exposed to the idea and why there might be some confusion on the issue.

 

Bill

[kokotg]

But what they think is essential differs from church to church & tends to be a problem for me.

 

I think of "essentials" as, generally speaking, the Nicene Creed. Certainly I've never had a problem as a universalist in either my DOC church or the UCC church where we were members before. I grew up evangelical (well, I'm a religious mutt: half RC, half Baptist), so I get what you're saying...but I think you might find that a kind of theological openness compatible with your beliefs is more common than you might expect in mainline protestant denominations.

[Aubrey]

Let's start here (okay, at least this is where we started when we began our conversion process). Why do we think we have to find a church that we agree with? It's like saying we have to find a Savior we agree with. He's either the Savior or He's not. The church is either the church -- or it's not. Why limit the Body of Christ to our own understanding? I realize not everyone processes it this way, and that's fine. But what a relief it was when I realized I didn't have to figure all this out! The church didn't have to make sense to me, it just IS. And I have to decide if I want to be a part of it or not. It's pretty humbling to come up against something that hits us "wrong" and realize it's US that might be wrong.

 

This is essentially what I've said. I do want to clarify, though, that I'm not limiting the Body of Christ to my understanding, but to follow the teaching of a denomination does require a decision to follow one thing & *not* follow others. That is a judgment on my part, which rests to some extent on my confidence in my own pov. It is an inescapable hubris.

 

Now I realize this all assumes that we can find the tangible church that Christ started -- and not everyone believes that's possible. But for us we realized that nothing is impossible with God and His original church still exists in its designed purity and fullness (the people aren't pure and whole, Lord have mercy on us all, but Christ's Body, the Church, is). We ended up asking ourselves, if this church does still exist, why would we not be a part of it?

 

Again, though, recognizing a church as being HIS church is a fallible decision.

 

ETA -- I know you have looked at this same church and found it wanting, so I'm not addressing that; I'm just focusing on the above quote in the thinking-it-through process.

 

I know--I mean...I guess I assumed. I am not talking about EO specifically, fwiw. Beyond that...I guess I'd rather not say publicly for now. I mean, I'll be a loudmouth about it later, just not yet. ;)

[Aubrey]

I have a question to ask...

Where in the Bible does it say that Mary has no sin?...I have never read that or anythig that would lead me to believe that, so I wonder why others think that...The Bible says all have sinned but Jesus himself...

Please read this with a respectful tone, as I am not trying to be disrespectful, just wondering where this teaching comes from...

 

Only Protestants see the Bible as the sole source of Truth in the way that you're describing. The idea of the sinlessness of Mary comes from church tradition, which Catholics (& some other denominations, I think) take as being equal to the importance/validity/inspiration of the Bible.

[Teachin'Mine]

Aubrey it sounds like you're on a wonderful faith journey! Enjoy the journey!!! There are many people who have been born into a faith and don't even know all that their faith teaches or believes. Because you are going into it with your eyes open and are truly interested in learning about the faith, you're able to see areas where you don't agree. I don't think there's anything dishonest or wrong in wanting to be a part of that faith. Our faith and our beliefs are often developing the more we learn and experience. Just because you don't believe in something now doesn't mean that down the road something won't be revealed to you and you will in the future. kwim?

 

The things which you must believe in you already listed in the Creed. :) The two "exceptions" are not at all critical IMO. And the Catholic Church never says that someone is going to hell because we couldn't possibly even know that. Jesus is the sole Judge. We do believe that hell exists and I believe that some choose this path themselves. Jesus wants to save all of us. :)

[Aubrey]

But here's the deal, he could do as he chooses, because He is God. But, I do believe she was chosen to be Jesus' mother, and yet she had sin... but He was born without. God is not with the limitations that are placed on humanity. He is the Creator.

 

This does not make any sense to me. "He can do as he chooses" does not really have meaning within the context of the faith, ime. He cannot sin; He cannot look at sin. A blood sacrifice was required, according to the logic He designed.

 

Catholics believe that Mary was sinless. From my perspective, this violates God's logic.

 

Of course Jesus was born without sin: He was God-made-flesh.

[Aubrey]

Both EO and RC (and I think others) believe in the ever-virginity of Mary herself, based on both Scripture and Holy Tradition, if that's what you're thinking of?

 

No, thanks to you the ever-virginity of Mary is a possibility that I see now.

[Aubrey]

You may have been confused because while it is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church [and in Catholicism that is what matters] there are individual Catholics who advance the argument that if Mary was without sin then her conception--like that of Jesus--must have been a virginal miracle. With the difference that her "parentage" was only "human" and not divine.

 

This is a minority view, and not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, but it does explain how you might have been exposed to the idea and why there might be some confusion on the issue.

 

Bill

 

Well, it has been a few years, but I was reading through...the book. I forget what it's called. The little white one. I *thought* everything I was saying came from there. Of course, that's not all I read, & I didn't read in a vacuum, so you could absolutely be right. And thanks for sticking in the possibility that I'm not crazy or making things up. Sometimes I wonder...:lol:

[milovany]

I have a question to ask...

 

Where in the Bible does it say that Mary has no sin?...I have never read that or anythig that would lead me to believe that, so I wonder why others think that...The Bible says all have sinned but Jesus himself...

 

Please read this with a respectful tone, as I am not trying to be disrespectful, just wondering where this teaching comes from...

 

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition (we don't ascribe to the concept of original sin), I believe it's the understanding that Mary, like all of us, was born with an ability to sin. She was fully human and as such, was affected by the wages of sin (death). She still needed Christ's salvation (see the Magnificat in the Bible; she calls Christ her Saviour). Because of her humanity, she had a choice just like all of us -- she could choose to sin. BUT unlike her prototype (Eve), according to the early church, she chose not to. She was the first to say "yes" to God completely, and is a role model for us.

 

Christ, on the other hand, as God, was not able to sin in His incarnation. That's where he is unique.

Edited May 6, 2011 by milovaný

[Avila]

I misremembered what I read about the Immaculate Conception a few years ago. Or read something wrong or something.

 

So I was wrong when I stated that some churches believe that Mary's mother was a virgin. But I do not believe that she was sinless. (Because if God could give *her* special grace, He could do that for all of us, & Jesus' death would have no meaning.)

 

Yes, He could have. He didn't choose to give us all that gift. But He is God, so that is His prerogative.

 

And removal of original sin is something Catholics believe happens to ALL of us at baptism anyhow.

 

It doesn't change the meaning of His gift to us in Jesus. Mary did come before Jesus and was to give Jesus human form. She is a special person with a special task. That doesn't change any meaning for the rest of us.

 

For that matter, Jesus didn't have to die for us either. God could have just skipped that part. He is God. He isn't limited. But Jesus was also showing us a path for redemptive suffering and giving of ourselves too.

 

Anyhow, the fact that God could give that grace to anyone He chooses (and did choose to give it to Mary) means He is omnipotent and omniscient, which we are not.

[Aubrey]

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition (which is quite different from the RC tradition in many of the aspects related to Mary), I believe it's the understanding that Mary was not born with an inability to sin. She needed a savior just like all of us (see the Magnificat). She was fully human and had a choice just like all of us, and could have chosen to sin. BUT unlike her prototype (Eve), she chose not to. It's a subtle thing, I know, but it makes a big difference.

 

Christ, on the other hand, as God, was not able to sin in His incarnation. That's where he is unique.

 

To say this, though, seems to be saying he wasn't fully human--you know, we have a Savior who knows our suffering, etc. Who was tempted, but CHOSE not to sin, who did what Adam failed to do but theoretically *could* have done.

 

Maybe that's splitting hairs.

[Teachin'Mine]

I misremembered what I read about the Immaculate Conception a few years ago. Or read something wrong or something.

 

So I was wrong when I stated that some churches believe that Mary's mother was a virgin. But I do not believe that she was sinless. (Because if God could give *her* special grace, He could do that for all of us, & Jesus' death would have no meaning.)

 

We are all given that grace at baptism. It is then that original sin is removed. Mary was conceived without sin since she was to be the mother of Jesus. God is a MAJOR planner. :D

[3lilreds in NC]

Aubrey, your thinking is usually way ahead of me, but let me share what I've been thinking about lately and you can take it for what it's worth, or tell me that it has no place in your discussion here. :D Your questions resonate with me, though, and I'm wondering if we're pondering similar things.

 

Religion and faith are not the same thing. Religions are man-made systems attempting to honor and understand God in a specific way. I have a hard time believing that any person could find one Christian denomination with which they agree 100% on every single point. I certainly have not. I have struggled with it for a long time, because I believe we are commanded to be in fellowship with other believers, but I cannot and will not say I agree with everything just so I can attend a certain church.

 

God does not fit in a Methodist-shaped box (the tradition in which I was raised) or a Lutheran-shaped box (dh's tradition) or a Catholic box or an Episcopalian box, etc. I get frustrated when people get stuck on doctrine/dogma that really makes no difference to my salvation. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Getting to know him and becoming more like him are THE POINTS.

 

I believe God wants us to ask questions about what we believe and what we are taught. I need to know the Bible for myself, not just what a pastor or priest teaches. I should be checking the Scriptures to make sure what they teach is truth. I have a living faith. I am continually changed and refined as God makes me over into who He made me to be. This process would be hindered if I let other people tell me how to believe, KWIM?

 

I identify myself as a follower of Christ. I can't see that I will ever identify myself as a particular denomination again. We found a really neat church in our new town that seems to be the closest thing to "it" for me. The pastor works really hard to make sure people are not clinging to rituals etc. I had a great talk with him the other night that showed me that he is a worthy pastor. Not perfect, but truly seeking Christ and encouraging others to do the same. Our church pulled itself out of their old denomination when it (the denom.) took a liberal turn, so now they are non-denom. I have not seen much legalism there, which I like. I'm sure it's there somewhere, but so far, I've been really impressed with what I see going on.

 

I don't think your faith needs to be split from the rest of your life. You live it all the time. Are you thinking you're becoming less dependent on being defined by a particular church? As in, you don't necessarily have to say "I am a ___________ and loving it?" I'm trying to understand that part. I think that makes sense, probably because that's what I do - I go to church but I don't identify myself as being a Member Of A Denomination Agreeing With All Its Teachings.

 

(Disclaimer: I'm not a great thinker of lofty thoughts. I hope this makes sense.)

[simka2]

Well, it has been a few years, but I was reading through...the book. I forget what it's called. The little white one. I *thought* everything I was saying came from there. Of course, that's not all I read, & I didn't read in a vacuum, so you could absolutely be right. And thanks for sticking in the possibility that I'm not crazy or making things up. Sometimes I wonder...:lol:

 

Nah, your not too crazy! ;) I've heard of it to, but in exactly the way spycar described. Our Priest let us know the concept was out there (in the RC), but that it wasn't official doctrine or anything.

 

...for what it's worth I "get" what you are saying. My needs are going to be different than yours, but I definately needed to find a spiritual home if at all possible. Yes, I twitch at things, some things I say, "Hey, I understand where the tradition came from, so I can accept it on those grounds."

 

Thankfully, I can let many things go into the realm of Mystery. :D

[Aubrey]

Yes, He could have. He didn't choose to give us all that gift. But He is God, so that is His prerogative.

 

And removal of original sin is something Catholics believe happens to ALL of us at baptism anyhow.

 

It doesn't change the meaning of His gift to us in Jesus. Mary did come before Jesus and was to give Jesus human form. She is a special person with a special task. That doesn't change any meaning for the rest of us.

 

For that matter, Jesus didn't have to die for us either. God could have just skipped that part. He is God. He isn't limited. But Jesus was also showing us a path for redemptive suffering and giving of ourselves too.

 

Anyhow, the fact that God could give that grace to anyone He chooses (and did choose to give it to Mary) means He is omnipotent and omniscient, which we are not.

 

I see this argument, but I cannot accept it. As I said earlier, I believe that God has designed a logic of his own that he will not violate. Part of that logic is that the wages of sin is death. Period. There is no special grace that can be dealt out at will--and if there was...why would we venerate that? That would be like praising a man who inherited wealth or won the lottery for being able to buy nice things.

 

Sorry--REALLY--to disagree.

[milovany]

To say this, though, seems to be saying he wasn't fully human--you know, we have a Savior who knows our suffering, etc. Who was tempted, but CHOSE not to sin, who did what Adam failed to do but theoretically *could* have done.

 

Maybe that's splitting hairs.

 

And so I must have described it incorrectly (forgive me) because the full humanity and full divinity of Christ is a cornerstone of the EO church. A church council addressed this and agreed to the two natures of Christ.

 

ETA -- Please re-read the post you quoted, by the way. I changed the wording a bit to deal with the "wages of sin is death" issue re: Mary while you were replying, I think.

Edited May 6, 2011 by milovaný

[Aubrey]

I don't think your faith needs to be split from the rest of your life. You live it all the time. Are you thinking you're becoming less dependent on being defined by a particular church? As in, you don't necessarily have to say "I am a ___________ and loving it?" I'm trying to understand that part. I think that makes sense, probably because that's what I do - I go to church but I don't identify myself as being a Member Of A Denomination Agreeing With All Its Teachings.

 

(Disclaimer: I'm not a great thinker of lofty thoughts. I hope this makes sense.)

 

No; I feel the need to be labeled. :lol: And I have a hard time going to church when I don't fit moderately well. It's like wearing the wrong size shoes: it hurts.

 

If you were to look simply at the facts of my life, you would assume I was a particular denomination. This has been true of me almost since I got married. What I am suggesting is that this means that I am, essentially, that denomination. I *fit.* Even if I don't completely fit.