Am I a Christian?

[Alien]

Alien, Jesus said he was the only way. Don't you believe him?

Wooo! Shall I attempt to answer that? I did start the thread with a pretty wide open agenda ...

Several begged questions there Sparko, and no simple yes/no answer. The Bible appears to say that, yes. Did Jesus actually say that? If he did, did he mean what we are assuming he meant? If so, could he have been mistaken? I have no ready answers.

On the other hand, I believe that God wants everyone to be saved. I also believe that God is good, and that means that he wouldn't deliberately discriminate against whole sections of people, and people tend to follow the religion of their family and the culture they grow up in. Does someone who is born and lives his whole life in Saudi Arabia have the chance of becoming Christian? I guess so. Is it overwhelmingly more likely that he will be Muslim? I would think so. So does the God who wants everyone to come to him and is essentially fair about that simply write off a huge section of the world because they happened to be born in the wrong place?

Consider also that every society that has ever existed has had some concept of God. Religious belief seems to be a universal phenomenon. This is less compelling perhaps, but I see it as evidence that God exerts an all-pervasive "influence" throughout the world. Might this mean that he is more interested in getting some response than one particular one?

Though different religions hold varying, and often conflicting, beliefs on factual matters, there are common threads. The one I see most clearly is the idea of personal transformation, becoming closer to the ideal that (I believe) God holds out to all people.

So, I am left with two conflicting indications. First, what my logic tells me about the nature of God and what that suggests about how he relates to us. Second, a sentence from the Bible. I've made my decision; I could be wrong.

(Hah! that was a long answer to a short question! )

[Amazing Rando]

I tend be attracted to the post-Vatican II Catholic position on other religions- that God is present in them and acting through them to minister to people, even while drawing them toward Christ as the ultimate goal. That's technically called an "inclusivist" position and is kinda in the middle- not rejecting the primacy, even supremacy of God's revelation in Jesus Christ, but acknowledging the grace of God at work in the lives of non-Christians as well.

[Sparko]

Wooo! Shall I attempt to answer that? I did start the thread with a pretty wide open agenda ...

Several begged questions there Sparko, and no simple yes/no answer. The Bible appears to say that, yes. Did Jesus actually say that? If he did, did he mean what we are assuming he meant? If so, could he have been mistaken? I have no ready answers.

well one central doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus is God. So he can't be mistaken. And reading the context shows that he did indeed mean that he is the only way and that unless you believe in him you will be condemned. He didnt just say it in one place either.


John 14: 5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

and especially in John 3

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

On the other hand, I believe that God wants everyone to be saved.

yes he does. But apparently free will makes that an impossible goal, even for God. Sure he could override free will, but perhaps that violates some higher principal of his.

I also believe that God is good, and that means that he wouldn't deliberately discriminate against whole sections of people, and people tend to follow the religion of their family and the culture they grow up in. Does someone who is born and lives his whole life in Saudi Arabia have the chance of becoming Christian? I guess so. Is it overwhelmingly more likely that he will be Muslim? I would think so. So does the God who wants everyone to come to him and is essentially fair about that simply write off a huge section of the world because they happened to be born in the wrong place?

I grew up agnostic and as far as I know you were an atheist for most of your life despite us both growing up in "Christian" countries, and yet, late in life even, we both came to believe in Christ as our savior. So the "well they just grew up that way so its not their fault" is not a really good excuse. In fact Christianity STARTED in the middle east so being born there is not a hinderance to the faith. There are a lot of Christians in the middle east. You just don't hear about them much. And did you know that there are more Christians in China then there are in the USA (despite them trying to control religion completely)

It seems that Christianity flourishes in hardship. And isn't that exactly what you would expect from God?

[Alien]

A congregation does need to be united. If someone believes a heresy deep down inside, fine. That's their issue. But if there's any vocalized disagreement with essential doctrine, it can't just be given free reign. That always has to be addressed and the influence removed if it isn't changed.

Don't ask, don't tell?

Seriously, though, I believe that a church has the right to defend its doctrines, but is a suppression of all opposing views the best way to go? Would it not be better to allow free expression of opinion in order that "heresy" can be countered with good arguments in favor of the "orthodox" view? (The quotes in the preceding sentence are intended to convey my view that one man's orthodoxy is often another man's heresy). If you can't make a convincing case for your doctrine, then maybe you shouldn't be espousing it.

There's a limit of course. If someone is merely being disruptive, then he should (politely) be shown the door!

Why even stick with a church that one doesn't agree with on essentials? If someone's beliefs are unorthodox, surely they should try to find a church that holds to their own views.

That would be my position, certainly. I have found a church where my odd opinions are allowed to be expressed, and where I even have a few people who agree with me. I would not be comfortable in a church that insisted on my expressing beliefs that I did not hold, or leaving.

Otherwise it is apparent that the unorthodox person is trying to infiltrate and change church's minds.

See my comments above. Sound doctrine should be able to be defended, though a troll should not be tolerated, imo. As for me, though I enjoy discussion for its own sake and am happy to set out my views and defend them as far as I can, I have little to no interest in changing the beliefs of others. (Hmm, exception - if I thought someone's beliefs were leading them to be hurtful to others I'd try to change them, but I wouldn't hold out great hope of success. People rarely change their minds through argument). I am mainly interested in pursuing my own path to God, and am quite content to allow others to pursue theirs. Discussion allows me to bounce my thoughts off others and maybe improve or refine them based on their responses. I really don't want to be responsible for changing other people's beliefs. I'm not that confident in my own!

[mossrose]

There are quite a few things that don't matter within a congregration, one of them being, imo, a person's views on last things. Or whether Calvinists or Arminians have got it all right. Or opinions on who wrote Hebrews. Or what colour the new hymnbooks are ( oh, wait, I forgot, nobody uses hymnbooks anymore.......but that's another thread......). And so on.

However, some things matter and are not negotiable, such as the virgin birth, the concept of the Trinity, the character of God, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the Godhead of Jesus Christ, and whether or not Jesus was who He said He was, i.e., the ONLY way to the Father. And other issues of core doctrine.

Of course, if Jesus was mistaken, then He wasn't who He said He was, and was instead, as Lewis so aptly pointed out, a liar or a lunatic. There can be no compromise on this.

Those who desire to allow all other religions to also be valid regarding their way of "salvation" are merely giving in to the world view that we should be tolerant of everyone else's beliefs, that there is no absolute truth, and that it is "unloving" to even suggest that Christianity is the only true path to God and how dare we say that those who reject Him are going to hell!

Sorry, as I said in another thread, there cannot be more than one truth, and to decide that all "religions" have some truth in them is false.

And it is not loving to allow those who believe they are okay with their false religion to continue on that false path to their false redemption.

Narrow is the way to the Father, and few there be that find it. Broad is the path to destruction, and many are those who find that path.

To answer your question, Tony, about whether or not you are a believer, only you and God know for sure. But I must caution you about falling into the trap of thinking that Christ is not the only way to the Father.

[Alien]

All religions are exclusive, precisely because there is such a thing as the law of non-contradiction. If you believe anything at all, you cannot affirm the opposite and still belong. If you don't "believe" what they believe, you won't be a part of that system. To affirm that anything at all is "true", is to become exclusivist.

That assumes that believing the exact right thing is essential to a relationship with God. I know that's the general opinion in some parts of American protestantism, but it's not the only approach. I'll tell a true story that illustrates what I mean.

I was once a Buddhist. A Tibetan Lama (monk) who taught our group had been on a trip to Nepal and was returning to Atlanta. His taxi driver saw his robes and asked what his religion was. On being told he was Buddhist, the driver launched into a clumsy attempt to tell him that Christianity was the only true religion and that he should accept Christ. The Lama just nodded and said nothing. We asked him why he didn't try to defend Buddhism, and he said "No, that would be very wrong. The driver is exactly where he needs to be now, and I should not try to change that."

All that said, if you wonder if you are really a Christian,

OK, I'll take the test.

just ask yourself if sin really matters to you.

It does. Struggling with it it has been a major preoccupation of my life.

Do you believe there is a creator God with a perfect standard and sin will keep you from entering his domain (Heaven)?

I see it more as "being on God's side, or not". Once we decide to align our lives with God we receive His help in our struggle with sin, and thus draw closer to Him. If we resist God's will, we inevitably move away from Him. (That's poorly put, because I believe that we are always in God's presence, but I don't want to write a short novel about it).

If so, how do you get out of this sin problem? Do you earn your way out?

I don''t see it as "rewards or punishment" so the concept of "earning" doesn't apply.

Obey rules until death?

Without God, that is doomed to failure. With God, we can improve, at least.

Or do you accept that God sent his Son to "become sin for us", to take our penalty, so that "by his stripes" we can be healed? Do you believe this was done for you? That if you call upon the name of Jesus, he can forgive and wash you clean before God?

The penal substitution theory of the atonement has never made sense to me. If I had to pick one, I'd go with "moral examplar" I think.

This isn't just truth statements that you say "yes... yes... yes..." to. It is trust, and faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please him". These truths you have to have embedded in your heart. These truths are all eggs you've put in one basket, your life is in that basket. Everybody can sit around talking about how bad fast food is even as they pass the Big Macs around the room.
If these truths mean something to you beyond an agreement with a creedal statement, then I'd say you're a Christian.

See what I said about "being on God's side". That's pretty much "faith" to me.

[cbacavis]

Don't ask, don't tell?

Seriously, though, I believe that a church has the right to defend its doctrines, but is a suppression of all opposing views the best way to go?

I am speaking more of the disruptive type of visitors/members, who - for example - don't really want a private conversation with the pastor. Someone who'd rather "infiltrate" as I said and make a scene out of disagreement. There are exceptions to this where the scene is necessary because of a church's extremely incorrect beliefs, of course. But not really many exceptions.

Would it not be better to allow free expression of opinion in order that "heresy" can be countered with good arguments in favor of the "orthodox" view? (The quotes in the preceding sentence are intended to convey my view that one man's orthodoxy is often another man's heresy). If you can't make a convincing case for your doctrine, then maybe you shouldn't be espousing it.

Referring back to something Dr. Lizard said, I also think that the salvation essentials are really at the top. If someone is attending a church which agrees with those essentials, and the person doesn't, yet wants to raise a fit about it, they need to leave until they change their views. If they disagree with something outside of those essentials, fine. They shouldn't ever be shown the door for that unless they make their views a continual (and unnecessarily disruptive) focus.

But a church shouldn't have anything against open dialogue. I especially like members reserving that for regular classes, so that concerns and opinions can be talked through between the bretheren and figured out.

There's a limit of course. If someone is merely being disruptive, then he should (politely) be shown the door!

Exactly.

I have found a church where my odd opinions are allowed to be expressed, and where I even have a few people who agree with me. I would not be comfortable in a church that insisted on my expressing beliefs that I did not hold, or leaving.

That's fair enough. If you don't even agree with most of a church's essentials, you should get out of there just because of principle! But churches in general should be open to at least allowing dialogue. People should be free to grow in the faith, and others should be free to hold them accountable if they start growing in a harmful way.

[Alien]

well one central doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus is God. So he can't be mistaken. And reading the context shows that he did indeed mean that he is the only way and that unless you believe in him you will be condemned. He didnt just say it in one place either.

Yes I know.

yes he does. But apparently free will makes that an impossible goal, even for God. Sure he could override free will, but perhaps that violates some higher principal of his.

Reasonable as long as everyone gets a fair chance at it ...

I grew up agnostic and as far as I know you were an atheist for most of your life despite us both growing up in "Christian" countries, and yet, late in life even, we both came to believe in Christ as our savior.

Correct.

So the "well they just grew up that way so its not their fault" is not a really good excuse. In fact Christianity STARTED in the middle east so being born there is not a hinderance to the faith. There are a lot of Christians in the middle east. You just don't hear about them much. And did you know that there are more Christians in China then there are in the USA (despite them trying to control religion completely)

You can't compare someone living in a Christian country where there is no fear of persecution with someone in Saudi Arabia (OK, you can because you just did, but you know what I mean). People who convert under difficult circumstances are a small number compared to the total population, and this is true of early Christianity as well as the present day. First they actually have to hear the message (imagine a woman living under strict Islamic rules), then they have to be prepared to overcome everything they have been taught as children, then there's social pressure, then there's actual physical danger. Those who convert are a very special subset of the population. I still say that the rest don't get the same opportunities as we do.

It seems that Christianity flourishes in hardship. And isn't that exactly what you would expect from God?

Some people are strengthened by hardship; many are not.

I've been thinking about your last sentence and I'm not sure I get it. Why would God want us to endure hardship (if that's your point)?

[Alien]

Hey Alien, I'd suggest you check out some books on various Christian approaches to understanding other religions in light of the gospel. One that I've read that is particularly well-nuanced, balanced, and fair to all positions is Paul F. Knitter's Introducing Theologies of Religions , which walks through the basics of different approaches, including several different degrees of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. There are a lot of views out there, each of which emphasize different portions of the biblical witness to make their case.

I read part of it on Amazon - it sounds interesting. I may get it. Thanks.

[Alien]

But a church shouldn't have anything against open dialogue. I especially like members reserving that for regular classes, so that concerns and opinions can be talked through between the bretheren and figured out.

That's what we do.

That's fair enough. If you don't even agree with most of a church's essentials, you should get out of there just because of principle! But churches in general should be open to at least allowing dialogue. People should be free to grow in the faith, and others should be free to hold them accountable if they start growing in a harmful way.

I agree.

I'd like to add that many people (and churches) seem to me to put altogether too much importance on peripheral doctrines and practices, like the form of baptism and details of liturgy. If they don't agree with everything a church does, they go off and form another one. Thus we have all the various branches and denominations that we see today. How will we ever come together as a church if people can't even tolerate differences at this level?

[Vigilante]

That assumes that believing the exact right thing is essential to a relationship with God. I know that's the general opinion in some parts of American protestantism, but it's not the only approach.

What does the Bible teach about the right approach? We're not interested, really, in what sounds comfortable to us and makes us feel good about humanity, or what a Monk thinks. What did Jesus SAY? Did he say there are many paths to God? Did he say the road is wide and there are many who find it? Did he say all roads lead to Rome? Did he say all religions are just trails on the same mountain heading toward the same peak? I don't believe he did say any of that. God places a high value on the truth, the truth is not just something we may stumble upon at some point on our own. It isn't just this thing that's not so important as long as you feel right about things.

Believing the truth about God and about Jesus is exactly what will cultivate a right relationship to him.

It does. Struggling with it it has been a major preoccupation of my life.

That's good. Unbelievers tend to only care about social "sins", they just want as few problems as possible. Sounds like you have a deep conviction.

I see it more as "being on God's side, or not". Once we decide to align our lives with God we receive His help in our struggle with sin, and thus draw closer to Him. If we resist God's will, we inevitably move away from Him. (That's poorly put, because I believe that we are always in God's presence, but I don't want to write a short novel about it).

"His help" could be described as the Holy Spirit, appropriately named the "Helper" that Jesus promised to send. We receive this Spirit upon conversion. I assume conversion is your statement "decide to align our lives with God". But is that what the Bible teaches what conversion is? Is that the choice we must make? The master we choose to serve? The name we call on in our despair? The name we turn to for forgiveness when we repent?
There is more to it then just wanting to live Godly. I think a desire to live Godly and obey him comes after certain other things take place.

I don''t see it as "rewards or punishment" so the concept of "earning" doesn't apply.

Good, the Bible doesn't teach that we must "earn" our salvation. But it does teach the concept of rewards and punishment.

Without God, that is doomed to failure. With God, we can improve, at least.

Yes, we all failed to keep the rules (Romans 3:23), and yes we can improve with God's help. But it is not our own goodness that gets us into Heaven or earns salvation. God doesn't choose to make us alive in him because he saw how good we tried to behave, that isn't Biblical. I'm not saying you suggested it, but you didn't answer the question directly, whether you think trying to be good is what earns salvation. I assume you do not. So I move on.

The penal substitution theory of the atonement has never made sense to me. If I had to pick one, I'd go with "moral examplar" I think.

This may be a problem area. You might have to explain what you mean. Do you mean to say the life of Jesus and how he took his treatment to the end, was simply a moral example, and didn't really have anything to do with us in a divinely "legal" sense? That his death was not a payment for sin, or a debt paid, but rather just an example for us to follow? I would hope not. His death was more than an example for us. Otherwise what does it even mean to be raised again on the 3rd day? What did Jesus mean "it is finished"? Why did he yell out "why have you forsaken me!"
We can talk about the issue more if you like, or not.

See what I said about "being on God's side". That's pretty much "faith" to me.

Being on somebodies side is not really what faith is. Hebrews 11:1 famously explains what faith is: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Doesn't really sound like he's saying faith is just aligning on God's side. That may be part of it, but it's much more. After all, many unbelievers attempt to align on God's side, cause they can make a living at it. Some align with God thinking they are really something else, but God will tell them "depart from me, I never knew you".

In any event, I'd explore your ideas about the meaning of the cross, and faith. But that's up to you.


Peace

[Sparko]

Yes I know.



Reasonable as long as everyone gets a fair chance at it ...

Its a mistake to think we deserve a chance at all, Alien. The bible is clear that we DON'T deserve any chances. We are sinners and we all have sinned on purpose. All we deserve is death. That is what makes God merciful. He gave his Son so that we don't have to get what we deserve.

Who are we do decide who God gives a chance to or not? Doesn't he know what your decision will be before you do? Doesn't he control when and where you will be born? God being all loving and merciful, don't you think that he will make sure that everyone gets all the "chances" they need? But that doesn't mean that God will save those who do not accept Jesus. The bible is pretty clear about that. He condemned many of his own chosen people (the Jews) because they rejected Jesus. What makes you think he won't condemn pagans who reject him? Or never hear of him?

You can't compare someone living in a Christian country where there is no fear of persecution with someone in Saudi Arabia (OK, you can because you just did, but you know what I mean). People who convert under difficult circumstances are a small number compared to the total population, and this is true of early Christianity as well as the present day. First they actually have to hear the message (imagine a woman living under strict Islamic rules), then they have to be prepared to overcome everything they have been taught as children, then there's social pressure, then there's actual physical danger. Those who convert are a very special subset of the population. I still say that the rest don't get the same opportunities as we do.

Christianity grew by leaps and bounds under persecution, Tony. Especially early Christianity. Despite being burned at the stake, tortured, hunted like animals, and made sport of in other ways. It grew so fast that in 400 years it became the National Religion of the country that did the persecution!! It became the defacto government of the Roman Empire!

I've been thinking about your last sentence and I'm not sure I get it. Why would God want us to endure hardship (if that's your point)?

Not what I meant. I meant that wouldn't you expect God to grow his church despite everything the devil and the world could throw at it?

Our God is unstoppable, Tony. UNSTOPPABLE!

[Alien]

Patricia, we have been friends for a long while, and the last thing I want is to have you think that I am hell-bound (and thereby have you worry about me). Nevertheless, if your list of essentials is correct then, sorry, by your rules I am not a "true" Christian.

When I first asked God to take over my life,
I did so with a great deal of trepidation, as I knew I had problems with many things that I considered to be part of Christian dogma. I went ahead in trust, asking God to lead me wherever He would have me go. As time went by, my doubts were not resolved, though my relationship with God grew closer, and my trust in Him grew stronger. I can honestly say that, when I truly needed Him, He has never let me down. I have also seen the flaws in my personality that I struggled with for so long be gradually healed. (I say that without boasting, as it is not my doing, and also acknowledge that I have far to go).

Still, my doubts about many things remained, and there came a time when I wondered if I was being honest to call myself "Christian". At that time my church held an adult education class on Marcus Borg's book The Heart of Christianity. What Borg wrote opened my eyes to the fact that there are many opinions within Christianity; one of these opinions was Religious Pluralism. That's not the only point of dogma that he helped me with, but that's what we are discussing. I decided to continue to call myself Christian, and I still do.

I said that I feel a close relationship with God. I have felt His displeasure at times, and changed my ways because of it. I can honestly say that I have no such feeling now. You may be thinking that it is not God that I am close to! (It's OK, it's a natural thought). My response is that I have never felt any urging to do something that I consider to be evil. On the contrary, all changes that I have noted in myself have been for the better. Indeed , I have been blocked from doing things that I dearly wished for, and that I have accepted with great regret.

As I said in the OP, I am totally comfortable with where I am now, and look forward eagerly to wherever God may lead me next. I can only hope that you won't write me off as some kind of apostate!

I'll now address some of what you wrote (this is a discussion forum, after all).

There are quite a few things that don't matter within a congregration, one of them being, imo, a person's views on last things. Or whether Calvinists or Arminians have got it all right. Or opinions on who wrote Hebrews. Or what colour the new hymnbooks are ( oh, wait, I forgot, nobody uses hymnbooks anymore.......but that's another thread......). And so on.

We still have hymn books in the pews, and a surprising number of people use them, despite the words being on the screen. I can only guess that they can read music and find it helpful!

However, some things matter and are not negotiable, such as the virgin birth, the concept of the Trinity, the character of God, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the Godhead of Jesus Christ, and whether or not Jesus was who He said He was, i.e., the ONLY way to the Father. And other issues of core doctrine.

That's a long list! And there's more? I honestly cannot say that I affirm all of them. I don't exactly deny them either, but I have grave doubts about some.

Of course, if Jesus was mistaken, then He wasn't who He said He was, and was instead, as Lewis so aptly pointed out, a liar or a lunatic. There can be no compromise on this.

Or honestly mistaken, or misquoted?

Those who desire to allow all other religions to also be valid regarding their way of "salvation" are merely giving in to the world view that we should be tolerant of everyone else's beliefs, that there is no absolute truth, and that it is "unloving" to even suggest that Christianity is the only true path to God and how dare we say that those who reject Him are going to hell!

I don't believe as I do in order to be "nice" or avoid offending people. Nor is it simply tolerance. I truly believe, for the reasons that I have set out in other posts, that what I say is correct. You see, I have a core belief of my own, that is in the end completely unprovable either way. That is, that God is good, and part of that is that His feelings toward us humans is that of love, and that in the face of endless provocation. (I sometimes have to stop and shed tears at the thought of just how amazing that love is). I have to believe that, because anything else is too horrible to contemplate. Thankfully, all my experience with God has strengthened that belief rather than weakened it.

So, when I see that the Bible claims that God abandons half the human race to a horrible fate because they choose to approach Him in a different way from Christians, I have to test that against my own core belief, and as I have said before, it doesn't fit. Love trumps rules and compassion trumps justice (if justice is what it is).

Sorry, as I said in another thread, there cannot be more than one truth, and to decide that all "religions" have some truth in them is false.

Hmmm, if I say "Grass is green, Canada is south of the USA, and Newcastle is the capital of Great Britain" and you say "Grass is green, Canada is north of the USA, and Denver is the capital of the USA", would you not agree that we are both right about grass, you are right about Canada and I am wrong, and we are both wrong about the capital cities?

And it is not loving to allow those who believe they are okay with their false religion to continue on that false path to their false redemption.

Given your beliefs, I agree.

Narrow is the way to the Father, and few there be that find it. Broad is the path to destruction, and many are those who find that path.

That may be true of pluralism too.

To answer your question, Tony, about whether or not you are a believer, only you and God know for sure. But I must caution you about falling into the trap of thinking that Christ is not the only way to the Father.

I would say that only God knows. I am far from sure! But I'm prepared to leave it in His hands, as I have so many things.

And your caution is noted, dear friend.

[Sparko]

Tony, I think God will lead you where he wants you to go, just keep plugging along.. God Bless.

[mossrose]

Patricia, we have been friends for a long while, and the last thing I want is to have you think that I am hell-bound (and thereby have you worry about me). Nevertheless, if your list of essentials is correct then, sorry, by your rules I am not a "true" Christian.

When I first asked God to take over my life,
I did so with a great deal of trepidation, as I knew I had problems with many things that I considered to be part of Christian dogma. I went ahead in trust, asking God to lead me wherever He would have me go. As time went by, my doubts were not resolved, though my relationship with God grew closer, and my trust in Him grew stronger. I can honestly say that, when I truly needed Him, He has never let me down. I have also seen the flaws in my personality that I struggled with for so long be gradually healed. (I say that without boasting, as it is not my doing, and also acknowledge that I have far to go).

Still, my doubts about many things remained, and there came a time when I wondered if I was being honest to call myself "Christian". At that time my church held an adult education class on Marcus Borg's book The Heart of Christianity. What Borg wrote opened my eyes to the fact that there are many opinions within Christianity; one of these opinions was Religious Pluralism. That's not the only point of dogma that he helped me with, but that's what we are discussing. I decided to continue to call myself Christian, and I still do.

I said that I feel a close relationship with God. I have felt His displeasure at times, and changed my ways because of it. I can honestly say that I have no such feeling now. You may be thinking that it is not God that I am close to! (It's OK, it's a natural thought). My response is that I have never felt any urging to do something that I consider to be evil. On the contrary, all changes that I have noted in myself have been for the better. Indeed , I have been blocked from doing things that I dearly wished for, and that I have accepted with great regret.

As I said in the OP, I am totally comfortable with where I am now, and look forward eagerly to wherever God may lead me next. I can only hope that you won't write me off as some kind of apostate!

I'll now address some of what you wrote (this is a discussion forum, after all).



We still have hymn books in the pews, and a surprising number of people use them, despite the words being on the screen. I can only guess that they can read music and find it helpful!

That's a long list! And there's more? I honestly cannot say that I affirm all of them. I don't exactly deny them either, but I have grave doubts about some.

Or honestly mistaken, or misquoted?

I don't believe as I do in order to be "nice" or avoid offending people. Nor is it simply tolerance. I truly believe, for the reasons that I have set out in other posts, that what I say is correct. You see, I have a core belief of my own, that is in the end completely unprovable either way. That is, that God is good, and part of that is that His feelings toward us humans is that of love, and that in the face of endless provocation. (I sometimes have to stop and shed tears at the thought of just how amazing that love is). I have to believe that, because anything else is too horrible to contemplate. Thankfully, all my experience with God has strengthened that belief rather than weakened it.

So, when I see that the Bible claims that God abandons half the human race to a horrible fate because they choose to approach Him in a different way from Christians, I have to test that against my own core belief, and as I have said before, it doesn't fit. Love trumps rules and compassion trumps justice (if justice is what it is).

Hmmm, if I say "Grass is green, Canada is south of the USA, and Newcastle is the capital of Great Britain" and you say "Grass is green, Canada is north of the USA, and Denver is the capital of the USA", would you not agree that we are both right about grass, you are right about Canada and I am wrong, and we are both wrong about the capital cities?

Given your beliefs, I agree.

That may be true of pluralism too.

I would say that only God knows. I am far from sure! But I'm prepared to leave it in His hands, as I have so many things.

And your caution is noted, dear friend.

Tony, my dear friend. I have no doubt, in my finite capacity to understand these things, that you are a believer. I hope I did not intimate otherwise. Like all people though, only God really knows your heart, and only you know whether your commitment to God is sincere.

There is so much we don't understand about God and His character. So many things we have to look at with the eyes of faith, and not our own understanding. I have been a believer for a long time, and there are certain things that I believe without any doubt, one of those things being that Jesus is who He said He is.

However, I also understand, even though I forget sometimes, that not every believer is at the same place I am at. We all have questions and doubts, and we need to find those eyes of faith to find the answers we are looking for.

Sometimes that takes some time, different amounts for different people.

I believe what I believe, and am convinced of it. That's just the way it is.

And, like Sparky, I believe that God is leading you to where He wants you to be. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things.

You know I love you dearly as my friend and my brother in Christ.

:huggy: