[Peter Debelak]

MacDuff, Unregistered and others:

Yes, I have bristled recently in some posts. I get frustrated by the apparant reality that I don't communicate my ideas well and then people respond to things I'm not arguing. I will own that. My hope is to actually convey what I am thinking and have experienced, so that it can be sharpened, challenged or encouraged. But it is not helpful to me or to anyone else when folks respond to arguments I am not making. But again, I will own that as my failure. Please accept an apology for the tenor of those posts...

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Peter Debelak

Prolonged??? That was one of my shortest posts. Well under 200 words.

No Socratic method intended. I really thought I had it right with those two simple questions. Just thought I’d spend what little time I have left here trying to understand what it is you are trying to say. I thought it might be a little different than what is the norm here. Maybe a little closer to what I was trying to get across. But I no longer think that is the case.

I have been intrigued by your positions and though they are a bit more aggressively articulated than I may state them, they do have a similar emphasis that I have been trying to express.

I didn't really know what your questions were getting at, and I confess I was in a defensive attitude when you posted them. See my comments above.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I’ve been fascinated by how so many Christians can’t take the first and last books of the Bible literally. As if what was written is some sort of mythical reference or a parable like thing that stands for something else.

I'd be interested to hear more about what you mean here. You said this in response to my reference to Revelation 2-3. Literally, these passages discuss a message to city-churches that I don't associate with and aren't in existance today. Are you saying these shouldn't be read in a way that have some spiritual principles that can be gleaned? Or are you saying my reading of the verses is "literal." Sorry, I just didn't follow. Definately would be interested in more elaboration.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I will only say in my own defense that I have absolutely no disdain for Christianity. It has managed to serve Christians quite well for two millennia. I just don’t think there has been any real difference between the history of Christianity and the history of humanity in general. And thus to me Christianity is not really an expression of the Bible that is explicitly supernaturally oriented with obvious claims for evidence of the supernatural. So like everyone else here, you have totally misunderstood my view.

No, I believe I understood your view. It is one I've expressed here before. In fact, if you've seen any posts regarding my testimony - you'll note that the biggest reason I left the LC initially (in fact, at the time, I rejected God entirely) was that when I looked at my "Christian life" up to that point, I realized I really didn't need any faith or spirituality AT ALL in order to be "successful" in it. Members of the church praised me for how "spiritual" I was - and yet I knew that I had simply mastered a bunch of culture norms and mores, just as I would have done if I was born into a Buddhist family.

If human culture was all that was necessary to be "good" at "church," then I wanted nothing to do with it.

The ONLY reason I refound a faith was because I came to believe that God IS spiritual and MORE THAN human culture, though He works in and often through it.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Christians have a habit of understanding Scripture by interpretation. It’s the common denominator between Catholics and Protestants. And the reason why Catholics and Protestants are doctrinally divided, as well as why Protestants are doctrinally divided from one another. They think their interpretations are what Scripture says. The diversity of the result doesn’t seem to bother Christians at all as they go about their business in whatever Church they happen to find themselves. Until someone gets them riled about something, then they just go off to find another Church that they deem more suitable. The current state of Christianity is very convenient for riled Christians.

So what does Scripture say? Whatever one wants it to say. It will always back one’s own view. I think Scripture backs my view. But who here agrees that it does? The one who calls my Scriptural view a theory with no conclusion? Or the one who calls my Scriptural view a fairy tale with no practical expression? I rarely even present Scripture anymore when I present my own view. Christians don’t understand the Bible alike. What’s the use? I could be a fundamentalist and hit people over the head with my Bible all day long. To no avail. They would just hit me back with their own Bible. And curiously enough the Bibles wouldn’t say the same thing.

Once, when I was still new to the forums, I made the mistake of just posting a list of Scriptures without any comment whatsoever. Except to say that they represented my view. Only to have the post called my personal opinion. Is that what Scripture is about, just a matter of personal opinion? That does seem to be the case in Christianity. Especially in Protestantism, where Scripture is claimed to be the only authority for all faith and practice, while simultaneously the claim is interpretively executed. They can’t even agree on what morals to follow, having their own interpretations for that as well. Catholicism makes much better sense in that regard acknowledging both the necessity for interpretation (that is commonly practiced by all) and having an authority that deals with that necessity. Doesn’t make my faith in the Bible any stronger. And it makes my faith in Christianity, that interprets the Bible according to whatever seems naturally reasonable to them, non-existent. Yet how can I tell whether or not I may be just as guilty of Biblical interpretation as the Christians, even though I’m savvy enough to oppose the practice?

The only reason why I still have some faith in the Bible is because it was through reading the Bible for myself after being a Catholic from birth that I actually began to believe that all that stuff was really true. By the time I was 12 I already began to doubt the verity of Catholic doctrines. When I read the Bible for myself, something inside seemed to say, now you know what’s real. And at first I was really enthused, to the point of near fanaticism. Talked about it all the time. Until I saw that the Catholics didn’t like what I thought was real. Just like here. So I went on a quest through Protestantism. Who liked what I thought was real no more than the Catholics. Just like here.

I suppose to some degree I've come to similar conclusions. For myself, personally, I have come to believe in the Bible and the SPirit within. But I know that when I read the Bible and interpret it, that interpretation will differ from others - often greatly. ANd everyone uses the Bible to support their view, fully aware that others use the same book to justify a different view.

On one hand, I cannot just abandon the way I read the Bible and what I see that its conveying, just because others disagree. But on the other hand, I also recognize my own fallibility and that there is value to subjecting my interpretation to community of fellow believers. My view on numerous SCriputre has changed in various ways in just this manner - not that I adopted the view of the person arguing with me, but the fellowship caused me to see a viewpoint I hadn't given full consideration to - and thus caused me to adjust my view.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I didn’t really come on this forum to promote my own view. At this point in time I really couldn’t care less if Christians agree with my view or not. But it would be nice if they at least understood what it is they are disagreeing with. Not that I think that all who disagree don’t understand. Which is very revealing to me of their own thinking.

This was a bit of my frustration - I don't mind folks disagreeing, but I would prefer they understand what I'm conveying first before disagreeing. But again, the fact that others may not understand what I'm trying to get across can be just as much my failure of clarity.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

I only came here initially to share my own experience of the Recovery. Never did get to do that, except to say I experienced zero abuse. Not that zero abuse is really what too many on this forum want to hear. Whether unconsciously or openly, they don’t want their wounds to heal. Their wounds being their identity.

MacDuff

I definately would like to hear your experience in the LC, if you're still open to sharing.

Thanks for your long, thoughtful response.

In Love,

Peter