Cactus Game Design Message Boards

"A "contextualist" (which I consider myself) would classify the Bible as a collection of books, each to its own given time period and location. A book such as First Corinthians, for example, would be viewed as a book written by Paul, an early Christian theologian, to a Greek church to deal with specific issues in that church (not a book written by God to provide specific instructions to Christians for the rest of time)."

Just so I'm clear, you don't claim to be a Christian, correct?

Where would you draw that conclusion?

Well, the label of "Christian" currently carries a certain connotation which I don't know if I'm okay with; however, my own belief system contains elements by which one could easily it as a "Christian" belief system (i.e. a trinitarian view of God, sanctification/justification, faith, causual relationships between reaping/sowing, a similar eschatology, and compatible free-will and determinism) although there may be other elements that would probably be frowned upon by the stereotype (i.e. ultra-morality/amorality, post-modernism, human mortality, and other things).

 I don't think faith in the Bible (or claiming that it was "written by God" for all of time), belief in the the rapture/antichrist, or anything along those lines can be claimed as part of "being-a-christian" as much as it is just current pop-Christian trends

You could say that I view the same doctrine through an individualist lens: constructed out of my own language and understanding.

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 05, 2009, 08:43:52 PM

Well, the label of "Christian" currently carries a certain connotation which I don't know if I'm okay with...

I was sad to read this.  I know that I said that your path would lead you away from Christ in the next 10 years, but I didn't know that you were already at a point of disassociating yourself from being "Christian".

Self fulfilling prophesy, perhaps?

EDIT: In fact, this seems that it very easily will become a self fulfilling prophesy.

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 05, 2009, 11:39:10 PM

Self fulfilling prophesy, perhaps?

Not actually considering that I didn't prophesy it for my "self" but for someone else.  However, I'm still hoping that at some point you will actually prove me wrong   All it takes is for you to come to a place that you lose faith in your ability to reason being the ultimate source of truth, and to return to your trust in God's Word that you had as a child.

By having the prejudgement that I would fall away from Christ, you now posite my actions to support your theory which changes your reaction towards me, which in turn change my response to you, and eventually leads to your prejudgement being fulfilled.

I personally don't see any merit in having an incorrect view, nor see anything "better" that comes out of having that view.

@ Prof:  I'm not going to speak for Colin, but I see where he may shy away from the "label" of "Christian".  Of course, I may not like the label for other reasons.  80% of Americans feel that they are "Christian" and yet our country is in trouble.  So I like the term "committed Christian."  But labels in general can be dangerous.

@ Crustpope:  I wonder if you may be misreading Prof's intentions.  (I can't speak for others because I don't know them as well.)  We both know Prof personally, and we know that he is not malicious and IMO not a judgmental person.  I think in his zeal and passion that he may come off that way or pushy but I think he is motivated by 2 things.
     1.  He cares for Colin (and for most people, in fact)
     2.  He wants to address heresy.
I don't think either of those points are motivated by fear or "killing" dissension.  The Bible encourages in multiple passages to deal with heresy and a brother in error.  (Now this is where people may disagree about who is in error.)  He feels that Colin is in error about his belief/view/outlook of the Bible, and he hopes to correct it out of concern for Colin's welfare and not fear of his ideas. 

But then again, I'm not Prof.

@ Crustpope:  I wonder if you may be misreading Prof's intentions. 

While my post came soon after Prof's, he was not one of the people to whom I was reffering.  Other than a few posts, which I likely misinterpreted, I have seen Prof's interactions with Caleb to be encouraging, but there are other, less mature people posting who disturb me.  my hope is that any non-christian who stumbles upon these boards judge us not to harshly because of their words.

I don't think it is rude to encourage others to be as cautious.  I should not do it in a rude way, but there is a place for dissenting with Colin's views.

Im not talking about encouraging other so be as cautious, I am talking about those who continually tell Colin that he "isn't a christian if he believes such and such,"  or people who, through thier incredulity ask quesitons or make assumptions such as "all Christians should be like X."  These type of actions tend too exclude people from the body of believers instead of inviting them to become a greater part of the body.

Its almost as if some people act like "if you arent like me, then I am going to brow beat you and berate you until you either A) come around or B) leave for good."  While debate and encouragement to see different (better?) views is fine, Berating someone in order to "convert" them to your viewpoint will never win any souls or encourage any one to become a stronger christian.  Even if someone ends up agreeing with you, they likely did so because they are just tired of getting beat up and their "faith" will be like the seeds landing on the path, where they are trampled by the feet of men.

I encourage debate, so long as it is in a spirit of love and encouragement.  Some of what I have seen, though, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination fit into this category.  Those are the comments and people I am adressing.

Is there room in your position for Paul's command to excommunicate (i.e. have nothing to do with some in the church who repeatedly sin and are unrepentant, or who mislead others with false teachings about Christ)?

in principle, yes I agree with it.  But I do not believe that excommunication should be a permanent state and I am not sure that paul meant for it to be that way.  I am also not sure as to how best this process would take place. 

I do believe that we should warn people against destructive behavior or ideas but always leave room for God's Grace to let them back in.

I agree.  In fact, I think that the excommunication (when a chance to return is offered) can act as a catalyst for a heart change.  It can present the sinner/false teacher with a crisis moment where he can allow his hard heart to be penetrated by the Holy Spirit, thus giving him the opportunity to repent.

Without the excommunication, his sin or false teaching could cause a cancer in that church.

So now genuine Christians have to suffer not only from the people within the church that give us a bad name, but also the otherwise good and well-intentioned souls that leave us to fend for ourselves.  The church will struggle to deal with either of these impediments; I greatly fear that the combination of the two may destroy it for generations to come.

    Schaef, it really depends on your definition of the Church.  Remember (which I'm sure you do which is why I'm curious of your definition) that Jesus promised that the gates of Hell could not stand up to it.  Plus, Satan has been trying to bring down the "Church" for a couple of millennium.  Some of the problems back in NT times still happen today.  So that is why I ask: what definition of church gets destroyed?

Doesn't a lot of this stem from how we define the word "Christian"?  I think that this has become one of the most misused words in our language.  First of all, it is a noun, not an adjective.  Just this fact alone escapes most people, who use such phrases as "Christian principles", as if the word is ever used that way in scripture.  There are Christ's principles, or biblical/scriptural principles.  Christians don't determine the principles which we live by, Jesus does.

I raise this question of "What is a Christian?", because quite frankly I am frightened how loosely the word is used these days.  For example:

1)  Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the divine inspiration of all scripture?  I don't see how, but then again the reason I don't is because of what I read in those scriptures. 
2)  Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah?  Again, from the scriptures I don't see how.
3)  Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus is Divine and the Son of God our heavenly Father?  Isn't this a requirement, according to the scriptures?
4)  Can you be a Christian if you do not believe and practice the teachings of Jesus and His inspired apostles/writers?  Not if the bible is true.
5)  Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the miraculous, such as heaven and hell, the resurrection of the dead, angels and demons, the devil, the Holy Spirit, and all the miracles in the bible?  Again, if the bible has the answer, then it is "No."

Being a Christian, according to scripture, is MUCH more than saying that you like some of the things that this Jewish Rabbi in 30 AD had to say.  It is a mental conviction that everything in the bible is true and inspired by the Holy Spirit, meaning that what it says about Jesus is true, meaning that I had better comply with Jesus' teachings if I hope to be saved.

So you can see why I may have concerns, out of love, for someone claiming allegiance to Christ but denying the inspiration of the scriptures and referring to an inspired apostle as a "theologian" writing solely to address problems of a congregation 2000 years ago, rather than for all Christians for all time.

Sorry to rant, but if we can't even agree on what a true Christian is, then we will never come to any agreement on the rest.

Is it not incumbent upon you to take ownership of your faith, and shun people's prejudices rather than hide from them?

The OT sections of these boards, if anything, demonstrate a broad range of perspectives among brethren, but reasonable people aren't going to say that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in dunking versus sprinkling for baptism, for example.  So either your concern among fellow believers is a largely-unfounded fear, or you are allowing the prejudices of unreasonable people to influence the way you present yourself, or you wish to shed tenets of the faith that are so basic to the church that they are universally agreed upon despite these wide differences.  If the latter is true, then maybe criticism of those unorthodox ideas is not unwarranted.

Is it not incumbent upon you to take ownership of your faith, and shun people's prejudices rather than hide from them?

The OT sections of these boards, if anything, demonstrate a broad range of perspectives among brethren, but reasonable people aren't going to say that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in dunking versus sprinkling for baptism, for example.  So either your concern among fellow believers is a largely-unfounded fear, or you are allowing the prejudices of unreasonable people to influence the way you present yourself, or you wish to shed tenets of the faith that are so basic to the church that they are universally agreed upon despite these wide differences.  If the latter is true, then maybe criticism of those unorthodox ideas is not unwarranted.

I was speaking on terms of the subconscious psychological mechanisms of self-fulfilling prophesy.

Sorry, but you lost me after "The reason I am hesitant to give myself the label of "christian"...."  

And if you do not believe that the apostles claimed to be speaking the words of God/Christ, you are sincerely mistaken.  But you have obviously read the bible and it has not convinced you of this, so it is unlikely that I can.

No offense, but if you don't have a reason for believing that I'm sincernely mistaken, why do you believe so?