amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
I may be wrong, but in identifying the 'axis mundi' of the general Christian faith, through having read many books and spent many years on forums, it seems to all come down to a core tenet of 'faith in Jesus,' when we try to arrive at something 'indisputable.' The act/state of faith, as far as I can tell, seems to be the most important to you. As well, it's also what mother told me as a kid, when I inquired what was most important
That is not what I am trying to debate, therefore. Though, if you take issue with this, could you please provide a short list of what you think is most important in the faith, so that I can see where 'faith' stands in it
My question considers the individual act/state of faith in Jesus (or whatever you think is most important) as superseding whatever else you believe, in importance, about your religion. And therefore granting you the redemption you want, in spite of anything else you might believe about anything else in the bible
For I have noticed that Christians will quickly get extremely creative with the whole corpus, while some notion of 'sola fide' remains quite constant. But in the next post, you might suddenly apply your own hermeneutics to a random verse in the book of revelation, for example, and describe an 'important' takeaway that I or no one else had ever heard of.
And you will be rather 'insistent,' though the oft random verses you prescribe great relevance to, might be in distant orbit, from that which you might all in common, call essential
So therefore, how creative can you get with the bible, while still revolving it around a solid faith in Jesus? Developing forms Christianity might have pruned out much of this, (the gnostic works getting canned etc.) but it is clear that any modern person who applies thought to the bible, and describes what they think, seems in reality unable not to apply subjective content to it, and to it add their own creativity
How much of that can you actually do. What if a person had the greatest faith in Jesus, and believed that they were saved, but believed Paul was the devil? Or that the book of revelation should be removed, or had just a touch of gnosticism in their other beliefs, or paganism?
And I would argue that anyone, any believer, who bothers to say anything at all about their Christianity, anything whatsoever besides what is literally written in the text, then says what they think about it in an inevitably altered way, even if subtly. And so adds to it
How creative can you get, while still setting all the other of your beliefs around the central core, which is faith in Jesus, as being the most redemptive and immutable in all of that? And if that is what you really think, then does it really matter at all, regarding anything you believe besides that?
That is not what I am trying to debate, therefore. Though, if you take issue with this, could you please provide a short list of what you think is most important in the faith, so that I can see where 'faith' stands in it
My question considers the individual act/state of faith in Jesus (or whatever you think is most important) as superseding whatever else you believe, in importance, about your religion. And therefore granting you the redemption you want, in spite of anything else you might believe about anything else in the bible
For I have noticed that Christians will quickly get extremely creative with the whole corpus, while some notion of 'sola fide' remains quite constant. But in the next post, you might suddenly apply your own hermeneutics to a random verse in the book of revelation, for example, and describe an 'important' takeaway that I or no one else had ever heard of.
And you will be rather 'insistent,' though the oft random verses you prescribe great relevance to, might be in distant orbit, from that which you might all in common, call essential
So therefore, how creative can you get with the bible, while still revolving it around a solid faith in Jesus? Developing forms Christianity might have pruned out much of this, (the gnostic works getting canned etc.) but it is clear that any modern person who applies thought to the bible, and describes what they think, seems in reality unable not to apply subjective content to it, and to it add their own creativity
How much of that can you actually do. What if a person had the greatest faith in Jesus, and believed that they were saved, but believed Paul was the devil? Or that the book of revelation should be removed, or had just a touch of gnosticism in their other beliefs, or paganism?
And I would argue that anyone, any believer, who bothers to say anything at all about their Christianity, anything whatsoever besides what is literally written in the text, then says what they think about it in an inevitably altered way, even if subtly. And so adds to it
How creative can you get, while still setting all the other of your beliefs around the central core, which is faith in Jesus, as being the most redemptive and immutable in all of that? And if that is what you really think, then does it really matter at all, regarding anything you believe besides that?
Last edited: