Galien,

Are people not free to worship God whoever they choose?

If we  take the bible as God's word, he's the potter;  we're the clay. He knows what's best for  us.  It says how to worship him (eg intellect, emotions and deed are "in"), and says what displeases him (eg child sacrifice, temple prostitution and pride  are "out"). It says there are unpleasant consequences for those who choose to disobey  him. ("Not fair" perhaps, but he *is* the potter, and  we *are* but clay.)

So ...  *if* we take the bible as God's word,  we need  to think in terms of worshipping God the way *he* chooses, rather than the way *we* choose. (Eg, why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say ...)

Yeah you have to watch that temple prostituiton, tends to be a deal breaker in God's sight. What I mean is, is there any reason why we still have to worship God the same way we did in 1964? Surely a lot of things in church are cultural and not biblical at all, and it often depends on a person's age. Most older people I know cannot stand contemporary christian music, find it much too loud, prefer older hymns and feel they are the only songs that should be sung in church. That doesn't automatically make them right though. Its a preference.

I know some churches that of course have youth services, which I think is a good thing to cater for everyone

Cultural issues? Obviously. Eg, the "music wars" have been going on for centuries. Youth services, children's services, open air services, liturgical services, "waiting on the Spirit" services, "foreign language" services - sure there's a variety of ways of Christians "formally" fellowshipping.

The point is that the sentence I quoted at the start has priorities back to front from a Christian pov. To rephrase a principle that has been brought out before, Christian worship is on *God's* terms.

Talmid,

The point is that the sentence I quoted at the start has priorities back to front from a Christian pov. To rephrase a principle that has been brought out before, Christian worship is on *God's* terms.

Which means what, exactly?

Brolga,

True worship is to give yourself in the service of God’s work, not to be caught up in an orgy of emotional diatribe and self indulgence.

God can see right into our hearts, and only he knows where are hearts are. He does not look at us with preferences, prejudices or a list of rights and wrongs. What we show on the outside is immaterial, only He can tell what is really going on inside us. One of the things I really hated about revival was the need for what I called "outward show", to be seen to be doing the "right" thing all the time. Uniformity was confused with unity, even if the heart was clearly hard as a rock.

I have friends who stand stiff as a board in church, right through to some who like to worship god in dancing with ribbons or flags. Everyone is different. Some people feel deep emotion during worship, some don't. I don't think it is fair to judge what we THINK is going on inside other people because they worship differently to us. Emotions are god given, not some kind of evil to be afraid of.

Hi Epi,

Here is a link I recommend for your reading and perusal

http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/e_pe-rc-info.html 

Do surf over to the Vatican link on the page as well

Blesssings

Metanoian

Galien,

The point is that the sentence I quoted at the start has priorities back to front from a Christian pov. To rephrase a principle that has been brought out before, Christian worship is on *God's* terms.

Which means what, exactly? 

Have another look at the 2nd para in post 136# (and various copies of the post). I don't think I can be much clearer than that. Maybe chat it over with your Christian friends if it's still unclear.

Talmid,

The point is that the sentence I quoted at the start has priorities back to front from a Christian pov. To rephrase a principle that has been brought out before, Christian worship is on *God's* terms.

Which means what, exactly? 

Have another look at the 2nd para in post 136# (and various copies of the post). I don't think I can be much clearer than that. Maybe chat it over with your Christian friends if it's still unclear.

Yes I got that. But do you really think God cares if one twirls ribbons, plays trumpets, beats on drums or stands still as a statue when they worship? Is there ANYTHING God doesn't go over with a fine tooth comb to assess its "rightness" or is it just othodox christians who do that?

 worship?worship?worship?

Paul in his letter to those in Rome who is loved by God and called to be saints;

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual act of worship.”

We all present our bodies as a living sacrifice which is our spiritual act of worship. Does this mean we are not ALLOWED to worship God in singing, in collective prayer that may or may not include song, in dancing, whatever? Should we be afraid to do anything that is not mentioned in the bible?

Galien

The point is that the sentence I quoted at the start has priorities back to front from a Christian pov. To rephrase a principle that has been brought out before, Christian worship is on *God's* terms.

Which means what, exactly? 

Have another look at the 2nd para in post 136# (and various copies of the post). I don't think I can be much clearer than that. Maybe chat it over with your Christian friends if it's still unclear.

Yes I got that. But do you really think God cares if one twirls ribbons, plays trumpets, beats on drums or stands still as a statue when they worship? Is there ANYTHING God doesn't go over with a fine tooth comb to assess its "rightness" or is it just othodox christians who do that? 

Cool. I'm sure then that you can get what "I think" from my comments about what you referred to as "cultural issues".

Brolga don't fall into the trap of prooftexting. Paul's statements in Romans 12, verses 1 and 2 have a far greater horizon in meaning then what is initially realized. I would commend to you this incredible piece of work




From pages 424 to 438, Barth discusses the "The Great Disturbance - The Problem of Ethics - xii 1,2" 

" our conversation is about men living in the world of nature and of civilization; and, moreover, we ourselves are also men living of necessity from minute to minute a quite concrete life ."

I would suggest to you Brolga that these verses indeed apply to exploring every aspect of our human existence and experience that we live in our whole of life journey as a Child of God.

blessings

M 

Meta,

our conversation is about men living in the world of nature and of civilization; and, moreover, we ourselves are also men living of necessity from minute to minute a quite concrete life ."

I would suggest to you Brolga that these verses indeed apply to exploring every aspect of our human existence and experience that we live in our whole of life journey as a Child of God.

Amen to that!

This says nothing when it comes to the CONTEXT of Romans Chapter 12 verses 1 & 2 and has no relevance about the existence of God at all...

Questions to ask when exploring context:

1) who is talking or making the address:  Paul

2) who is the address being made TO.  : "you Brothers"

 .... and so on

Ian, Brolga asked a question regarding context: "which is ?" and I simply replied with:

"I would suggest to you Brolga that these verses indeed apply to exploring every aspect of our human existence and experience that we live in our whole of life journey as a Child of God."

Meta,

I normally stay out of these things but ...

IMO it stood out like the proverbial dog's hind leg that this point was *exactly* what Brolga was alluding to when he orignally quoted the verses from Ro 12. And of course that's precisely what he said in the 1st para of his reply to you in 160#.

But if Brolga is going to get "up tight" rather than discuss as I was intending then I'll just ignore him in future.

Mate ... in the spirit of iron sharpening iron ... this (IMO) makes you look like a prat. Out of the abundance of the heart ...? I hope not.

PS I'll delete this if you delete yours

I get the feeling that there are some people who, after having left revival, are just too scared to seek out things for themselves in case they make ANOTHER mistake. Too afraid to have doubts, to decide for themselves what the bible means, have a literal belief of everything the bible says and are not comfortable unless they are christians in a very rigid system which relies on strict adherence to the established orthodox ways of doing christianity. If it isn't in the bible or the church fathers didnt say it or experience it or explain it, then it is of no value in the christian realm. They seem unwilling or unable to accept that as well as having a scriptural dimension, that a relationship with god also has an experiential dimension which is laughed to scorn as some kind of self indulgence. Many, many things about God and following him have been talked about and experienced since the reformation, but some people seem happy to remain there. Strange.

I guess I have trouble understanding why, after being part of a bible based cult, that ANYONE so involved would EVER take the position again of having THE truth, whereas all the other truths are false. After being part of this forum again for several months, and having a jolly good look at orthodox, evangelical, post evangelical, fundamentalist and pentecostal views of christianity, all I am left thinking is this - why do people who name themselves by the name of christ seem to spend more time arguing about who is right than they do about rejoicing in their similarities, and the fact they love god? Even though my idealistic little brain wants to believe otherwise, maybe human beings are just not able to get past the "who is right" thing, which is very sad. I sometimes wonder what god thinks sitting wherever he is watching us all throw ourselves around like we have all the answers, and we all claim to speak for him. I am sure we provide him with hours of amusement.

Hi Galien

In 179 you write

When, in all the time I have been on this forum have I told you what you need to do? Difference between my kjind of christianity and yours is that you accept that you have all the answers and you have the right to impose them on others. I don't fell that need because I'm busy looking after my own backyard.

Then in 181 you write

Try being a friend mate.

Isn't that hypocritical?

Hi Talmid

In 179 you write

When, in all the time I have been on this forum have I told you what you need to do? Difference between my kjind of christianity and yours is that you accept that you have all the answers and you have the right to impose them on others. I don't fell that need because I'm busy looking after my own backyard.

Then in 181 you write

Try being a friend mate.

Isn't that hypocritical?

If you think being a friend means telling another person how to love their God, then I guess it is. What I am saying is that I don't need brolga or anyone else to tell me how to do that. I gave up the need to tell other adults what to do years ago. The only time that tends to rear its ugly head is when a bully is around. Then I tend to tell them to stop.

I think being a friend is supporting others in their decisions, including the way they choose to perceive god, not imposing the way I do things upon them. If Brolga chooses not to share the depths of his heart, but instead recites rote bible stuff to me I learned in Year 4 well thats fine. I would prefer to hear how he feels, but he isn't into sharing that, except when it comes to telling me how self involved I am.

In a conversation, if one person is approaching the bible like it is an objective truth, and the other one isn't, there will always be a problem. I love my god with all my heart soul mind and strength, but I am also willing to admit that everything I beleive may be an illusion. If it is, I don't really care. Most christians prefer to believe that the bible is set in stone, completely infallible and objective. To me, any kind of belief system cannot be anything other than completely subjective.

The world is unsure and uncertain, there seems to be very little control of any kind in the world and very little security in anything. If the bible helps some people to have a sense of security and stability, fine. I love god, but without the magical thinking.

I would be the first person to admit I could care less about social conventions, or the middle class value system that poses as christianity.

But I do care about people, how they feel and what they think.

Brolga,

Ultimately, people who hog the last word consistently are people that strike me as very self-involved. 

Really brolga, what a mean thing to say about Ian.

Putting up with them takes more effort than I usually want to expend

And how is that comment NOT self involved?

Galien

So you don't dispute that it was "hypocritical" that in 179 you said you don't tell people what they need to do, then in 181 you proceeded to tell someone what he ought to do?

My world view doesn't preclude me from giving advice, so I'll point out that your 3rd and 4th paras indicate that your religion varies from the Christianity in the bible, given eg its record of Jesus' attitude to scripture.

Personally, it's because I love God - and the people he created - that I check my "personal revelations" against the record of what he has revealed in the past - the bible.

Frankly, it's your belief that "belief systems cannot be other than completely subjective" that is the current, troublesome, Australian middle class value system.

Talmid,

So you don't dispute that it was "hypocritical" that in 179 you said you don't tell people what they need to do, then in 181 you proceeded to tell someone what he ought to do?

I suggested he may wish to try treating me like a friend instead of giving me unsolicited advice on things I already know about. If you think that makes me a hypocrite, that's up to you. I never tried to tgell brolga how to work out his own salvation.

My world view doesn't preclude me from giving advice, so I'll point out that your 3rd and 4th paras indicate that your religion varies from the Christianity in the bible, given eg its record of Jesus' attitude to scripture.

Well that would be because it was Jesus' view. I'm sure he was able to prove a lot of things that I am not able to prove, being the word made flesh and all that.  And I don't have a "religion".

Personally, it's because I love God - and the people he created - that I check my "personal revelations" against the record of what he has revealed in the past - the bible.

Cool. I'm not claiming any "personal revelations" Talmid.

Frankly, it's your belief that "belief systems cannot be other than completely subjective" that is the current, troublesome, Australian middle class value system.

Well never having been part of the Australian middle class, I will have to take your word for that. To me its about taking a position of saying - this what i believe, but i cant prove it, and being comfortable with that. thats why it is called faith. I think its hilarious christians not being honest enough to say the same, but acting as thought the existence of god is proveable, when we all know it isn't.

Galien

The hypocrisy is that you said you don't tell people what they need to do yet you have no qualms giving such advice.

"Your religon" = "the religon you follow"

Of course you have personal revelations. You say that what's been revealed to you about Christianity differs from what has been revealed to orthodox Christians.

You were the one who used the line "the middle class value system that poses as christianity". Now you make no claim to know what "the middle class value system" is?

You wrote *completely* subjective; nothing about apologetics.

Talmid.

The hypocrisy is that you said you don't tell people what they need to do yet you have no qualms giving such advice.

If you say so. I made a suggestion to brolga on how to deal with me. I did NOT tell him how to be a christian.

"Your religon" = "the religon you follow"

I know what religion is Talmid.

Of course you have personal revelations. You say that what's been revealed to you about Christianity differs from what has been revealed to orthodox Christians.

Hehe, so I am the only person who thinks there is more to christianity than reciting scripture ad nauseum? I'd hardly call that a person revelation.

You were the one who used the line "the middle class value system that poses as christianity". Now you make no claim to know what "the middle class value system" is?

I do know what it is, what I said was that I was not part of the middle class.

You wrote *completely* subjective; nothing about apologetics.

Oh the evil of it all! A subjective opinion regarding the things of God! I'm not really interested in apologetics. Just more silly humans running around trying to prove something only the heart can know.

Why people try to take the beauty of holiness and turn it into something about as interesting as week old toast i will never understand.

Galien,

OK So you weren't telling Brolga how to be a Xian.

You spoke of "the middle class value system that poses as christianity" (#185), then said you would have to "take my word" for what "the middle class value system" is (#188), and now you know what it is (#190).

Your original comment was that "belief systems cannot be other than completely subjective". I questioned that. "A subjective opinion regarding the things of God" is something you just introduced. You introduced apologetics in #188; I simply pointed out that it was not part of the original post that I was commenting on.

Personally, God's holiness is one of the main reasons that I endeavour to heed his inscripturated word.

Talmid,

Personally, God's holiness is one of the main reasons that I endeavour to heed his inscripturated word.


Excellent.

Hi Ian,

I got responses that I pretty much expected, but I had some time on my hands yesterday and maybe we both learned something. The next few days though ...

PS I gotta thank you for the expression "God's inscripturated Word" I learned from you a while back.