h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Vicky: Be safe, be well, be as you are, may your god bless you and keep you.

Oh, we could have a good debate about military intelligence, but not here!

<>

You could start with the Nicaean Creed, if you want...

Essentially, Christianity is about a relationship with God. You can't have a relationship with someone you don't believe exists..

Here's what Wiki answers says (I did some googling and to my amazement, two of the top 10 sites are Finnish! That *never* happens! )

"The basic belief of Christianity was that Jesus Christ was the son of God and the Messiah, and that belief in him and the sacrifice he made for mankind will atone for sins and grant you eternal life. "

Wikipedia's article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

That's enough to be going on with, but Christianity is more than just a social club, it's more than just a big discussion group, or a sub-group of the Green party, as the Sea of Faith (NZ's atheistic Christian group) has become.

<>

Why, thank you!

I wish you the same..

Vicky

The Nicaean Creed.


Which version?

The Gospel According to wikipedia?

Re: Post: 8712

Vicky

Thank you for the above clear reply to my question

Are you aware that some other putative Christians claim there is no such thing as 'sanctified common sense'?

Ironically, their reasoning is, naturally enough, based upon their particular narrow interpretation of selected scripture, such as Rom. 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" and James 3:15 "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish."

Would you consider the acceptance of the notion of 'sanctified common sense' in any way necessary to validate a Christian?
Contrariwise, would you consider an individual to be a 'real' Christian who did not accept the notion?

More importantly, as far as I'm concerned , if 'sanctified common sense', (SCS), depends upon Christian theology, and if Christian theology in turn relies upon dogmatic interpretation of alleged historical fact as well as affirmation, (faith), is it possible for SCS to fail, if the underlying theology proves to be a result of factual error, misinterpretation of phenomenon, or contrary to real world evidence?

~~~

is there a sanctified common sense entry in wikipedia?

doesn't seem to be.


I did, however, come across this bit from a part of the generality of Christians:



http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Simmons/chapter34.htm

@ caesar

Them's the ones!

There's a lot of SCS in the book of Proverbs. It contains these words near the beginning:

<> Its well worth a read.

Re definitions of the term 'christian'...

The term was first used of the believers in Antioch (Acts11:26). The term was probably used in a derogatory sense to start with. That was a long time ago of course. These days the term is used by believers who follow 'the Way' as it was then called, as well as by people who consider themselves christians because they were brought up in a nominally christian country. I guess no one has copyright! You also get 'christian scientists', 'scientists who are christians', christian spiritualists', 'christians who are spiritual' etc etc!! The list goes on.

I won't try to add my definition but here are some thoughts to illustrate where I come from:

As Vicky said earlier, the christian faith is more a 'relationship' than a 'religion'. Over the years it has evolved into a religion but originally, the term 'church' didn't refer to a building, but the gathering together of believers. The term 'priest' in the New Testament referred to all believers, not one special guy at the top. Jesus forbade calling a special leader 'father' because 'you have only one Father in heaven'. Funny long flowing robes and incense swinging are later religious additions.

I tend to be an idealist in my own faith...trying to strip off the unnecessary stuff and get back to what it really means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. I'm rarely satisfied when I look at what I or the church have experienced so far and I try to keep in my head a vision of how much more God must mean for his people to have.

I've posted something of my own experience on my journal...every christian's (my use of the term, sorry)experience will be unique to them, but a changed life should be the norm.

I guess the best way to understand my view of the term 'christian' is to read the gospels and the book of the Acts of the Apostles to see how the first believers lived...not that they were without fault...but the experience they entered into was 'real'.

mikey2

Gif

Re women's rights...a thought...becoming a disciple of Christ is about giving up everything, including your rights, in order to gain LIFE (If a man would come after me, he must hate...even his own life...!).

Christ came to serve and calls his followers to be servants too.

These points don't fully explain that verse about women in church but it reminds us of the backdrop.

There's not much debate these days in my church but that Paul was speaking in his own cultural setting. I'm happy to go along with that view but, being an idealist, I like to keep the uncomforable questions in my mind, just in case we're incorrect.

You see, although I'm an idealist, I don't consider myself 'dogmatic'...I try to keep an open mind on certain issues. Other issues, such as love for God and neighbour, are obviously much moe important.

mikey2

<>

Okay, then I won't ruin it by trying to explain it to you.


az

I didn't see at first either. And then, just as I started stopping to look...

Vicky - I didn't spot it at first either - but look at the Pope's head.

Hi Vicky,

>Excuse me? Proof please!

Of course!

'Campolo was the subject of an informal heresy hearing in 1985 brought about by several assertions in his 1983 book A Reasonable Faith, particularly his claim that, "Jesus is actually present in each other person." The book became a hot button and the swirling controversy caused Campus Crusade for Christ and Youth for Christ to block a planned speaking engagement by Campolo. The Christian Legal Society empowered a "reconciliation panel", led by noted theologian J. I. Packer, to examine the issue and resolve the controversy. The panel examined the book and questioned Campolo. The panel later issued a statement saying that although it found Campolo's statements "methodologically naïve and verbally incautious," it did not find them to be heretical.'
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Campolo

>Oh yes, every atheist's favourite (mis)quotes. I refer you to the site Taliesin (!) brought to my attention.

Nice site. Shame it doesn't mention the two quotes I gave. Could that possibly be because they are totally genuine and the church has a long history of sexism?

See for yourself:

'women are the devil's gateway', Tertullian:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian27.html (1st paragraph, near the middle)

Augustine: “...but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God” (On the Trinity, Bk 12, Ch 7, 9-10). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130112.htm

Ss Augustine and Ambrose say the same thing.

><>
>Who?

Theologian and TV presenter here in the UK. Former fundamentalist and current liberal Christian. You can find a lot of his stuff on YouTube if you ever get the chance.

Gif

Hi Mikey,

>I like to keep the uncomforable questions in my mind, just in case we're incorrect.



Gif

Hi caesar,

>Christian Atheism is in no way an oxymoron

I'd have to go with Vicky on this and say that it is.

Gif

Only very slightly OT*, has anyone else been following the controversy regarding the soon-to-be-released, (maybe), Ben Stein epic -- 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' ?

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

*Richard Dawkins appears briefly in the movie, and writes about the amusing events surrounding his attendance at a 'pre-screening', here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

<>

The key is in that word "sanctified"... The verses you quote are about the carnal (non-regenerate) mind, and SCS as you call it, is all about the spiritual mind.

<>

No, I don't see acceptance of SCS as defining characteristics of Christians, *but* you don't seem to see that SCS is spiritual;, and therefore completely different from the carnal mind you mention. Why is it such an awfully big deal for you, anyway?

<>

I didn't say SCS depends on theology, I said it's *about* theology. Which is why it's all about the spiritual mind. Ordinary common sense is sufficient for all non-theological applications, such as booking a plane for instance.
Really, why make such heavy weather of it?

~~~

<>>

It's all a matter of definition! What he refers to as wisdom, is what I am calling sanctified common sense. Therefore Giford's objection ( and yours) isn't valid.

Vicky

<>

Excellent points, Mikey! (As they say on Fantascienza - 'quoto al 100%!' )

Vicky