A Closed Christianity

Seph

Illusions are dangerous.

They are dangerous because they delude us.

It is not that we make a mistake, and it's not that illusions only hide or conceal something; it's that illusions misdirect.

What is the Bible?

The bible is a library.

Contrary to popular opinion, the bible is not a book.

This is an illusion. The fact that these pages are bound - wrapped in a single cover - suggests that it is a single book. It is not. It is a library of books. This is a somewhat innocent illusion. However, a more sinister one awaits.

The question is whether it is an omnibus or not. ("The complete works of..."), and equally important, why would we believe it is?

Many Christians build their entire faith on the premise that the bible must be God's omnibus. (Complete and total and final works of...), and these are what constitutes a Closed Christianity.

But aside from wanting or hoping the bible to be God's omnibus, why would we believe this? Is it because it is 'Canon', or that its Table of Contents list its 66 books (73 in the Catholic bible)?

Ultimately, the bible's Table of Contents and it being 'Canon' are, for all intent and purposes, the same thing.

I am not questioning whether the books in the bible are divinely inspired or not. I am questioning whether its Table of Contents was divinely inspired or not (and who was divinely inspired to write it)?

The bible's Table of Contents - the bible's Canonicity itself, was a man-sanctioned construct (and please note, I did not say man-made fabrication).

The problem with a Closed Christianity having built its faith on the assumption that the bible is God's omnibus is twofold. Firstly, it necessitates the exclusion of any and all other 'Holy Script' (The Qu'ran, the Tao Teh Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, the Nag Hammadi Library, the Apocryphal Books, etc.)

It puts a limiting man-made cap on God's ability to communicate.

It also makes God a bigot, judging people because of where they were born, their country and their culture. Favouring and discriminating for no reason.

A Closed Christianity reverts thousands of years of theological evolution and spiritual growth and returns God to that of a petty Tribal Deity.

And secondly, a Closed Christianity is an umbrella term encompassing a variety of denominations and views with a commonality not overtly obvious. That commonality is Bibliolatry. (The authenticity and centrality supersede even God).

I think many Christians fail to recognize that they themselves are part of a subculture. (Christianity itself can be a subculture and if they truly believe that their faith is the truth, then the truth should transcend culture and subcultures. (Although culture is the lens in which we view the truth through, Culture does not dictate what that truth is).

If we can understand and accept that a minority council of bishops 1400 years ago cannot limit God's ability to communicate or express Himself, then we can be free to treasure an Open, unbound, and 'coverless' bible. We can also be enriched to hear God's Sophia whispering her Wisdom down through the corridors of time, throughout many cultures and subcultures.

This is an Open Christianity. This is a truly wild and untamed God. Not only a God that cannot be conveniently defined and put into a box, but one that refuses! A 'God' that shares the same traits as the eternal Tao from the opening verse of the Tao Teh Ching.

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

~

I suppose the next question is, what is an Open Christianity?

ringnut

Seph said:

I suppose the next question is, what is an Open Christianity?

I'm listening.

Galadriel

As am I. Just not sure what Open Christianity would look like. Is it universalism?

Seph

(I've been trying to post on this thread since yesterday, but I can't seem to cut-and-paste and post?)

Seph

(Okay. That one worked. Maybe it's something wrong with the material I'm trying to post???)

@Galadriel

Galadriel said:
As am I. Just not sure what Open Christianity would look like. Is it universalism?

Maybe. (A big maybe).
But doesn't universalism have everything to do with Salvation?

Seph

ringnut said:

Seph said:

I suppose the next question is, what is an Open Christianity?

I'm listening.

@ringnut
See An Open Christianity
(I cannot seem to post part of this here on TheOoze for some reason)

Galadriel

Seph said:

But doesn't universalism have everything to do with Salvation?

I've always understood it to be the idea that everyone is going to heaven. It doesn't matter what you believe or how you behave in this life...we're all headed to the same place in the end.

Is it still salvation if everyone gets it?

Your link isn't working, btw.

Seph

Galadriel said:

Your link isn't working, btw.

An Open Christianity

There we go.

Seph

Please don't take this the wrong way, Lydia. You're one of the last people I'd argue with (I've too much respect for you).

Galadriel said:

I've always understood it to be the idea that everyone is going to heaven. It doesn't matter what you believe or how you behave in this life...we're all headed to the same place in the end.

Is it still salvation if everyone gets it?

However, this make for a perfect example (and yes, that's how I understand Universalism too).

Within Christian circles, there are basically ”the Big Three” when it comes to issues of soteriology. (Please bear with me here. I'm doing this for anyone else reading. I know you know this inside-out because of your husband).

Camp # 1) Eternal Conscious Torment
Camp # 2) Universalism
Camp # 3) Annihilationism

These are the most popular soteriological positions, but they aren't the only ones.

There's what Spencer Burke speaks of in ”A Heretic's Guide to Eternity” as an ”Opt-out” Salvation.

Then there's the Eastern Orthodox's Theosis as well a Catholicism's Purgatory.

I suppose there is also reincarnation (which actually makes sense from a scientific-energy-can-never-be-created-or destroyed-only-changed point of view), but I'm not aware of any Christian denominations or views that hold this.

In an older post (http://theooze.com/forum/#/discussion/350/life-immortal/”>Life Immortal) there are even some perspectives that maintain that God had never intended for us to have immortality. (Funny how that one never really caught on, eh?)

Just for argument's sake, let's just suppose this was true. No eternal life, no Heaven. Just Annihilation. Annihilation for all. God wants or expects us to be good simply because. Our compassion, our love, our good morality are not to be bought or purchased. There should not be a reward for being good. It is simply expected.

Wouldn't that make nearly every type of Christian little more than Spiritual Hedonists? In the end it would all be self-serving, wouldn't it?

Let's take this obsession a step further. Couldn't Christianity completely drop its Soteriological facet?
Must Christianity have a soteriological position?

To keep this argument simple, all 3 soteriological positions (ECT, Universalism and Annihilationism) can find biblical support. I know. I've looked.

Isn't it odd that this point too is biblically ambiguous? Clearly God's either remaining silent on this issue, or it's an issue of such insignificance that it's left hanging and we're missing some larger point.

Could this too be a defining difference between a Closed and an Open Christianity?

A Closed Christianity must hold a soteriological view – whatever that may be.
An Open Christianity can remain soteriologically agnostic.

Here's a good question; Does your soteriological view affect your compassion? (and remember, compassion and pity are different).
Should these two things have absolutely any bearing on one another?

Am I only compassionate to others to purchase my own eternal existence? That wouldn't say too much for me, would it?

Would that align with Jesus' teaching of absolute sacrifice for others; a purest form of agape? Would you exchange your salvation for someone else's? Or is that a Christian taboo?

Sadly, for most of Closed Christianity I feel it is true.

Yes, I like that. An Open Christianity can remain soteriologically agnostic.

Galadriel

Bro, I've known you for far too long to take offense. :)

Seph

Galadriel said:
Bro, I've known you for far too long to take offense. :)

Ahh! Thanks!
;)

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Tagged

Top Posters