Must I accept everything?

[Terrywoodenpic]

At the Anglo-Catholic church I attend we recite the Nicene Creed.

That is true.. All Anglican Churches do so, especially During the main Eucharistic services.


It might be appropriate to mention, that today the Anglican Church remembers St. Basil and St Gregory who were mainly responsible for defeating the Arians who were in the ascendancy and supported by the Emperor valens.
To make a long story short ... the Church eventualy sided against the Arian beliefs which were defeated at Nicea, but the infighting between the catholics and the Orthodox continue to this day, especially about the finer points of the Trinity.


The Nicean Cread came out of this battle ground and the complex wording leads one to suppose that the compromise was difficult.

There still are Christians who do not believe Jesus is God.
The spectrum goes all the way from Unitarians who believe only in the divinity of God through to the Catholics and Orthodox who have their own ideas about the exact nature of the Trinity. Most Anglicans sit not far removed from either the Catholics or the orthodox, but take a rather more pragmatic view and do not concern themselves too much the the niceties of the argument...

When one considers that, but for the Decision at Nicea to unify the church.
there would be even less consensus on the Trinity and the nature of God and Jesus than there is today.

During the First three hundred years few Christians believed Jesus was God. Most came to believe he was the Son of God.
It was only after Nicea that the balance shifted to the Idea of the Trinity.

My personal view is that I believe that we Should worship God, his son Jesus and The Holy Spirit. I have no Idea how their relationship works.. I find the words in the Nicean Creed sheer Gobbledygook.

I prefer the wording of the earlier Apostles creed. Though both are accepted as Dogma of the Anglican Church.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not sure of your point, but my question still stands.

That question is answered by the Anglican Church, that every one is welcome.
There is no test of beliefs to come and worship.

The Anglican faith has perhaps the widest set of practices and beliefs of any church.
The spectrum goes all the way from old style Puritans to the Anglican High church with Evangelicals somewhere in the middle, they all put their own slant on the core beliefs.
If you believe in God and the Teachings of Jesus there is a place for you in Anglican worship...

 

[BSM1]

That question is answered by the Anglican Church, that every one is welcome.
There is no test of beliefs to come and worship.

The Anglican faith has perhaps the widest set of practices and beliefs of any church.
The spectrum goes all the way from old style Puritans to the Anglican High church with Evangelicals somewhere in the middle, they all put their own slant on the core beliefs.
If you believe in God and the Teachings of Jesus there is a place for you in Anglican worship...

I don't think that's what the OPer was asking. Even in the Anglican denomination wouldn't you have to accept their particular brand of Christianity to become a member? I really don't see an Anglican jumping up in the middle of a sermon and telling the reverend that Mohammed had a better take on the Eucharist.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't think that's what the OPer was asking. Even in the Anglican denomination wouldn't you have to accept their particular brand of Christianity to become a member? I really don't see an Anglican jumping up in the middle of a sermon and telling the reverend that Mohammed had a better take on the Eucharist.

There are no rules as to who may or may not attend an Anglican worship service.
Only those who have been baptised, in an acceptable form, my take Eucharist, but may attend the service and receive a personal blessing.

Only those who have been confirmed by the laying on of hand by a Bishop is a full member of the church and may vote in elections or stand for office.

In England any one may be baptised, married or buried by their parish church priest.

An Anglican Priest is responsible for the Cure of all souls living in his parish... what ever their stated religion.

Church warden are legally responsible for the discipline with in the church grounds.

From the above you will see that in your example, a Moslem if perfectly within his rights to attend worship in an Anglican church. he is however not able to take Eucharist, nor create a disturbance.... the exception being a Muslim who had previously been baptised as a Christian. ( baptism can not be undone)
Every one is welcome Just a Christ welcomed every one.

To worship as an Anglican you do not need to be a member. Some worship their entire lives and never become confirmed members... it is their choice.

 

[BSM1]

There are no rules as to who may or may not attend an Anglican worship service.
Only those who have been baptised, in an acceptable form, my take Eucharist, but may attend the service and receive a personal blessing.

Only those who have been confirmed by the laying on of hand by a Bishop is a full member of the church and may vote in elections or stand for office.

In England any one may be baptised, married or buried by their parish church priest.

An Anglican Priest is responsible for the Cure of all souls living in his parish... what ever their stated religion.

Church warden are legally responsible for the discipline with in the church grounds.

From the above you will see that in your example, a Moslem if perfectly within his rights to attend worship in an Anglican church. he is however not able to take Eucharist, nor create a disturbance.... the exception being a Muslim who had previously been baptised as a Christian. ( baptism can not be undone)
Every one is welcome Just a Christ welcomed every one.

To worship as an Anglican you do not need to be a member. Some worship their entire lives and never become confirmed members... it is their choice.

Still thinking you're missing the point. I'm not talking about attending a service, I'm talking about becoming a member of a particular religious sect. If you can't or won't accept the tenets of the chosen church why bother joining? Should religion simply be a social concept or should it have meaning on a deeper spiritual level?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Still thinking you're missing the point. I'm not talking about attending a service, I'm talking about becoming a member of a particular religious sect. If you can't or won't accept the tenets of the chosen church why bother joining? Should religion simply be a social concept or should it have meaning on a deeper spiritual level?

Actually I am not missing the point.

The major factor in the Anglican faith is worship of God in line with the teachings of Christ. The only hoops and hurdles that you might have to jump through I have already mentioned. Anglicans do not have to become a member Like joining a sort of club complete with club rules.
Anglican hold a wide range of beliefs and none of them are exclusive.

At one time we held to the thirty nine articles, like many protestant churches do. But they are based on Calvinism and few if any Anglicans would claim to believe them today. Not even priests are required to sign them now. Anglicans are in communion with many other churches and hold very ecumenical views.
Most would be happy to be able to include the Catholic and Orthodox churches in that list.

The OP questioner is attending an Anglo-Catholic Church with in the Anglican faith. this is as close to Catholicism as you can get with out accepting the Pope.

You talk about wanting to Join a religious sect... Anglicanism is like a multi sect with each group of churches sovereign but joined in communion with Canterbury.
The tenets of the various groups do differ But all are Anglican. If you ask an Anglican to state what makes him an Anglican as against a Methodist or Catholic, each would all come up with different answers.

This might be outside your experience but it is the way it is.
We are happy that others may wish to worship with us... over time they become indistinguishable in their differences.

I was told by a priest that the most difficult thing for an Anglican to be.... is a Heretic.

 

[Huey09]

Still thinking you're missing the point. I'm not talking about attending a service, I'm talking about becoming a member of a particular religious sect. If you can't or won't accept the tenets of the chosen church why bother joining? Should religion simply be a social concept or should it have meaning on a deeper spiritual level?

To clarify I never said anything about joining only trying it out. So far there's no issue, Terry is also right about it being as close to catholicism without a pope. Still I am going to have one obstacle and that is reconciling the trinity in my own way. If I believed in it, I lean towards more of the subordination or adoptism theory of christ.

 

[nazz]

I was told by a priest that the most difficult thing for an Anglican to be.... is a Heretic.

I'm curious as to why you identify as one then, TIC?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm curious as to why you identify as one then, TIC?

....Because I question everything and come to my own conclusions.
I think Anglicans are so used to near heretical thoughts. that they no longer notice them.( or may be they do and don't care.)

Like the trinity question that Huey09 struggles with..
I conclude that you do not have to take sides and come to a definitive answer about it.
God, his Son, and the Holy spirit are enough for me... I have no Idea about their true relationship.
For the first 350 years no one had thought much about it except a few fringe fanatics. Then the Idea caused nothing but trouble.
The Bible gives no Guidance on the subject nor did the apostles.
Nor Paul nor Jesus before him.

It is true later Church leaders thought it necessary that everyone should agree to it, But I think on balance it is perfectly safe to put the whole question to one side as unknown.

 

[Wu Wei]

I like wise words quoted sooo please do

I have looked through multiple books and I was unable to find the quote and then I realized it was from a book on CD that I got from the Library. The book was "The great transformation : the beginning of our religious traditions by Karen Armstrong" it is a long and at times tedious group of CDs with a lot of interesting information that at times, even though they are talking about things that are 100 of years apart, repetitive.

This is not a direct quote but what it was saying is that those that we look at today as the big names in religion and philosophy did not expect anyone to take things on faith. They wanted the individual to analyze and come to their own conclusion. Basically it is your decision as to whether or not to follow any religion and you need to put in the work to see if it is for you.....following simply based on faith was not required.

If I ever get the set of disks again to listen to I will post the direct quote, but I do not plan on doing that anytime in the near future

 

[ELoWolfe]

Huey09, have you been attending an Episcopal church, or an Anglican church? In the USA, the schism about homosexuality has divided the church, regrettably. While both are in the Anglican communion, they are distinct governing bodies.

As far as your own beliefs, the joke goes something like "ask four Episcopalians, and you'll get five answers." You will, no doubt, find someone in the Church who believes something you do.

The "three-legged stool" encompasses the Anglican faith; if you haven't been taught it or heard if it, it is the idea that the Church is like a three-legged stool. It rests on Scripture (Protestant), Tradition (Catholic) and Reason (Anglican).

Which stool is more prevalent probably depends on which church you go to. The churches in my area rely mostly on Reason, perhaps next on Tradition. Because of that, I've heard people call God in the feminine; I've heard people refer to Sophia; I've seen people refuse to accept communion from some priests because of their own theology vs. the priests. Most simply don't care.

I suppose, in my area, the churches are similar to U.U.s, only distinctively Christian in the method they understand the divine.

 

[Huey09]

Huey09, have you been attending an Episcopal church, or an Anglican church? In the USA, the schism about homosexuality has divided the church, regrettably. While both are in the Anglican communion, they are distinct governing bodies.

I've been looking for ones in my city, I found them but find myself distanced after running into an Anglican priest who I got into an almost heated discussion about how my belief in many parts of the bible is symbolic is not misguided or that I needed to study more.

As far as your own beliefs, the joke goes something like "ask four Episcopalians, and you'll get five answers." You will, no doubt, find someone in the Church who believes something you do.

I'm not sure about that still exercising some things from my searching that make it difficult to come back to a mainstream christian faith.

Which stool is more prevalent probably depends on which church you go to. The churches in my area rely mostly on Reason, perhaps next on Tradition. Because of that, I've heard people call God in the feminine; I've heard people refer to Sophia; I've seen people refuse to accept communion from some priests because of their own theology vs. the priests. Most simply don't care.

I'm under the bible belt so I haven't met anyone who refers to God as "she"(I do after watching Dogma lol) Also as for refusing communion and priest vs theology were the final nails in my original faith's coffin. I grew weary of the arguments and infighting where I'm suppose to find God. It still upsets me and I'm trying to work through it to get back into the faith. Its a frustrating and unfulfilling process for me

 

[ELoWolfe]

I completely understand, and I am in a similar position. I understand the hurt, the healing process and having to take it one step at a time.

Continue to seek; please don't give up.

Was your argument based on the idea that you believe portions of the Bible are symbolic, and he said they are not? Or do you take a more literal approach to the Bible, and he said you shouldn't? I am attempting to understand what you wrote, I apologize.

What are some of your beliefs?

 

[Huey09]

I completely understand, and I am in a similar position. I understand the hurt, the healing process and having to take it one step at a time.

Continue to seek; please don't give up.

Was your argument based on the idea that you believe portions of the Bible are symbolic, and he said they are not? Or do you take a more literal approach to the Bible, and he said you shouldn't? I am attempting to understand what you wrote, I apologize.

What are some of your beliefs?

The argument was mainly on the resurrection and the trinity as literal or metaphorical. Basically I feel that Yeshua was resurrected but I can't understand what for nor do I accept the traditional sacrifice and original sin doctrine after talking with a jewish professor of mine.. I am often suspicious of paul and sometimes find the letters by him contradictory. For example in galatians there is no difference in between a man and a woman, in corinthians wives submit to your husbands(weak example I know but I'm a little busy at the moment) and thanks to a friend I was able to perceive the in my own way as symbolic. This did not sit well but I think it comes from him being a former baptist(VERY LITERAL group).
I hope this helps give a little more insight for you, I'd be happy to explain more if you want.

 

[ELoWolfe]

One interpretation, from a Gnostic point of view, is that Paul is using symbolism to distinguish between the gnostic ("man") and non-gnostic ("woman"). This interpretation only has value if you believe in Gnosticism, or some sort of precept of Gnosticism.

Otherwise, he means exactly as he says. He also says there is no slave or master in Christ, but also tells slaves to submit to their masters. Quite confusing, I admit!

But the letters that say these (Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy) are disputed. Colossians, at least may be from Paul but 1 Timothy and Ephesians are pseudo-Pauline; they were written at a much later date by an anonymous author who wished to honor Paul and get his own ideas articulated and heard by attributing the work as if Paul had written it. A pious forgery, if you will.

This just tells me that the Bible is inspired, filtered and understood through the eyes of humans. Some of it, to be honest, probably shouldn't be in there at all! Some of the "lost books" probably should have been included, but haven't. At this point in history, though, it is difficult to change anything (unless you're Joseph Smith and wait almost 200 years, aligning yourself with people who claim to be believers but instead follow power and money).

In relation to Jesus, I am attempting to understand the "atonement theology" through the idea of wrath presented by a theologion C.H. Dodd. Unfortunately, I have not read Dodd so I do not know if this is what he does think in relation to the wrath of God, but from my understanding the wrath of God is an impersonal an automatic system woven into the creation that acts against sin. If this is the case, then it makes the idea of atonement from the Israelites more understandable with the ritual of the scape-goat; the goat which "carried" the sins of the people for them and away from them.

Jesus, in this situation, willingly took on the role of a universal scape-goat for us. He was willing to suffer, I would believe after his death, so we don't have to. Due to the courageous and divine act, though, he does not suffer now (I think?), since he is said to be at the right hand of the father.

Another way to see this comes from a story I read a while ago about a Christian Indian who tried to explain Jesus to his family. I can not find the original story, I am sorry, but this is what I remember. His mother followed a guru for a while but he did not respond to her, and she was hurt. So how this author spoke of Jesus to his mother, Jesus (in short) was a guru who took on the karma of his believers and continues to after his death.

Substitute a few words, and there you have the same idea in East as well as West.

The Trinity is weird, and sometimes I think it makes sense but other times it doesn't. I have met nontrinitarian Christians within the church. You may be interested in Marcus Borg, for starters.

I also found a video that you may be interested in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUQLBWS-M5s

The video isn't from an Episcopalian, but Borg is as well as John Spong, which the video mentions (I assume; I am at work and unable to listen to the video. I am going based on the comments I can find in the video, as well as the "about" section describing it).

I don't know if that helps or not.

 

[Huey09]

Otherwise, he means exactly as he says. He also says there is no slave or master in Christ, but also tells slaves to submit to their masters. Quite confusing, I admit!

And not really helpful to people trying to understand him

But the letters that say these (Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy) are disputed. Colossians, at least may be from Paul but 1 Timothy and Ephesians are pseudo-Pauline; they were written at a much later date by an anonymous author who wished to honor Paul and get his own ideas articulated and heard by attributing the work as if Paul had written it. A pious forgery, if you will.

then why bother with them at all? Pious forgery is still forgery Also Peter and other disciples constantly combated against Paul. James the just and Peter even shaved his head for the nazarene creed. Showing that what he taught was wrong. Paul even said that he was better than the disciples because he got his instructions from the "New Jesus in heaven". The bible white washes this by saying he "shaved his head for a vow he took." That's the equivalent of saying "Abraham made some promise to God." grossly under detailed.

This just tells me that the Bible is inspired, filtered and understood through the eyes of humans. Some of it, to be honest, probably shouldn't be in there at all! Some of the "lost books" probably should have been included, but haven't. At this point in history, though, it is difficult to change anything (unless you're Joseph Smith and wait almost 200 years, aligning yourself with people who claim to be believers but instead follow power and money).

I accept it as that as well consequently this diminishes my willingness to follow christianity

In relation to Jesus, I am attempting to understand the "atonement theology" through the idea of wrath presented by a theologion C.H. Dodd. Unfortunately, I have not read Dodd so I do not know if this is what he does think in relation to the wrath of God, but from my understanding the wrath of God is an impersonal an automatic system woven into the creation that acts against sin. If this is the case, then it makes the idea of atonement from the Israelites more understandable with the ritual of the scape-goat; the goat which "carried" the sins of the people for them and away from them.

Yeesss...but jews do not believe in original sin, simply put if you mess with God don't be surprised if something really bad happens to you. He may come after your family too if they help you disrespect him immensely. BUT after that no one else needs to suffer, because the punishment has been dealt.

The Trinity is weird, and sometimes I think it makes sense but other times it doesn't. I have met nontrinitarian Christians within the church. You may be interested in Marcus Borg, for starters.

The trinity is a strange love child of pagan converting to the christian faith being eased in with certain similarities. Like using the celt sun cross and saying that "God is the sun."

I don't know if that helps or not.

not really but thanks for sharing

 

[ELoWolfe]

I had a whole message typed up but realized, in the end, that it wasn't needed.

I'd say look into Hindu theology. It is confusing, but the best examples I can come up with to explain everything is from Hindu theology. The idea of wrath and karma, the idea of guru and Christ, and even the idea of the Trinity and gods.

Weird, huh?

 

[Huey09]

I had a whole message typed up but realized, in the end, that it wasn't needed.

I'd say look into Hindu theology. It is confusing, but the best examples I can come up with to explain everything is from Hindu theology. The idea of wrath and karma, the idea of guru and Christ, and even the idea of the Trinity and gods.

Weird, huh?

Nothing believe is ever simple huh? I'll look into it and maybe I'll find the answers. Also I'll rewatch the video and see where that gets me

 

[ELoWolfe]

I still laugh at it because of the irony. Knowing Jesus through the Hindus. But it isn't so striking an idea - the Church understood Jesus through the Greek philosophers.