Has faith evolved? (beliefs, evolution, doctrine, Christ, religion)

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Victor

I never mentioned Harris's view on the supernatural, his views on religion as a whole or anything of that nature. That was of your doing. So when I saw you mention it more then once, I figured you couldn't get passed his ideologies. So I simply asked to ignore all that and take the OP for what it is. I didn't intend it as a slight, I apologize if that's how it came across.

Ummm...can you show me where I was dwelling on his ideologies in this thread? I have treated the quote in your OP as if it were an isolated statement.

...product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt

I think he is referring to those passages in the Bible and tenets of belief that do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. I would have thought this even if I did not know who the quote was coming from.

You insult me yet again and the say you didn't intend it as a slight.

I honestly don't think you have the luxury of saying this since you seem to have misunderstood me as you noted:

Well, maybe this is where I am missing what you are saying

In your post #37 you agreed that a doctrine refers to a church teaching, not some specific church teaching:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunamoth
I'm sorry Victor but I don't understand your question. I don't see 'doctrine' as one big block; the Trinity is a doctrine, Original sin is a doctrine; infant baptism is a doctrine. Some evolution occurs by the fading out of a doctrine (like Original sin or the state of limbo), others evolve by the doctrine itself changing (baptism, infant vs. adult, sprinkle vs. immersion, and these changes I think reflect different understandings of the significance of baptism), others change very little (Trinity). When I think of 'doctrine' I think of it as referring to a church teaching. Maybe you are working with some other definition.

Vic said: No, that understanding will do just fine.

So, you are the one who changed your position on this.

Complaining?

Wousers! I don't even know how I came across like this. I was simply asking questions and somehow it turned into this.

Here's the exchange:

Vic said: Certainly...though it get's more vague to be called a Christian then ever before.
Yet I see you embracing the LDS, and presumable also the JWs, Calvinists, etc. etc. as Christians as well. I'm not criticizing this, I agree with you, but you yourself seem to have no problem compromising your core doctrines to include others with very different core doctrines as your sisters and brothers.

I see that I worded my response to you very poorly. Apologies. I did not mean to say that you were compromising your beliefs..but that this is in fact broadening the term Christian and making it more vauge. It did strike me when I read your post that you were disapproving of the vaugeness of the term Christian as it's used today.

However, I now see why you responded the way you did. Mea culpa.

[lunamoth]

bump to see last post

[Ðanisty]

Originally Posted by Victor

He addresses this. He says that to "change"; one would have to ignore and deny the very texts they believe in. He quotes for example Koran 9:123, where it states that the believer should wage war on the unbeliever. He holds that moderation in religion is simply a myth.

But people's understandings of what the verse means can and do change. Do we know for certain that the war that is to be waged is supposed to be a bloody, physical, violent war? Maybe it's an intellectual war. I don't have the answer because I don't study the Koran. Who's to say what was really meant by the author? It's possible to keep this teaching and yet, have the commonly accepted meaning change drastically over time.

Originally Posted by Victor

Certainly...though it get's more vague to be called a Christian then ever before.

Does it? Could it possibly be more vague now than it was to call yourself a Christian before there was an organized Christian church? I doubt it.

Having said that on the actual topic of this thread, I really think Victor is being misunderstood here. I don't think he's ever endorsed the writings of Harris. He just found an interesting comment and posted it here for debate. I also don't think anything was meant by using the Episcopal Church church as an example. He was simply trying to illustrate his point from a perspective that may be more easily understood. I don't see any sort of hostility in that at all.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Ðanisty

Having said that on the actual topic of this thread, I really think Victor is being misunderstood here. I don't think he's ever endorsed the writings of Harris. He just found an interesting comment and posted it here for debate. I also don't think anything was meant by using the Episcopal Church church as an example. He was simply trying to illustrate his point from a perspective that may be more easily understood. I don't see any sort of hostility in that at all.

I think I do have a difficult time understanidng Victor and I have even said so in this thread. I'm not upset about discussing the EC as an example...I am however perturbed to be told I'm addressing a bias rather than the quote. I'm also perturbed that some of what I've tried to explain about my approach and understanding of doctrine is being broad-brushed in a way that changes its meaning.