grow spiritually (read all 27 entries…)
Collosians 4 months ago

I’ve read several more chapters that Paul wrote, and my feelings about him have changed, subtly, slowly. I can feel his urgency and conviction now, ringing through letter after letter. He considered these churches his offering to God. There is so much passion in them, and I can understand that, given how I feel about mentoring my children and my students.

He was also, in seems, virtually growing a religion, trying to articulate the fundamental tenets of Christianity. I don’t really understand why he felt a need to do that, although I’m gathering that there were many sects that sprang up after Christ died. Was Paul feeling pressed to represent the true Christ? Was he afraid that Christ’s message would be lost? I’m guessing so, since he seems to feel so much urgency.

It’s awesome how many letters he wrote. Over and over again….reassuring, storming, warning, cajoling. They are really highly personal letters, and I feel like I’m going into someone’s private papers….almost too intimate.



Comments:

I think you've found

what is simultaneously Paul’s strength and weakness. By his actions, he was firming up Christian doctrine and creating a self-perpetuating church. Had he never lived, Christianity would have become something quite different from what it did, and it might not have survived as more than a marginal cult. That all seems very positive. Wherever his pronouncements on doctrine and practice are unsupported by the acts and sayings of Christ, there is an obvious possibility that he is twisting the church away from Christ into his own device. When one reads the Gospels (if one is a believer – certainly not if one is not) one is encountering the divine: God makes His will known, and we see that it is good. In reading the letters of Paul and some others, there is a significant remove: This is not the account of Christ’s sayings and doings, but rather the pronouncements of a self-proclaimed devotee of Christ. When Paul counsels love of Jew and Gentile, or explicates the sayings of Christ, or proclaims the divinity of Father and Son, all of that seems unquestionably right to the Christian believer. When he declares the rules for dressing and speaking in church, the authority of one evangelist over another, sexual practice, or even the imminence of the final days, that sounds a lot more like his preferences than any privileged knowledge.

Yeah,

Fortunately, I was never one of those people who think the Bible is inerrant (sp?).

I had this sorrowful epiphany while studying philosophy in college. It occurred to me that I would never really know what truth was (and as a beginner scientist, that was really disturbing). Inevitably, I have to use my own judgment.

That was disturbing in those days. I’m much more ok with it now.

Although I really don't want to,

I keep returning to solipsism when I consider the nature of truth. Everything we (or I, if I am only speaking to myself) apprehend is sensory data which may or may not correspond to physical reality. Even if one is more than a brain in a jar or disembodied consciousness, chemical, electrical or surgical manipulation of the physical brain can effect any possible sensation: No sensation is logical proof of the geography of reality, so any belief that one apprehends it is purely speculation. The best argument I know for the existence of something outside of myself is the existence of opposing viewpoints: I have no reason to argue against myself or impugn my reasoning – but SOMEBODY keeps doing it! Descarte’s proof – Cogito ergo sum – seems flawed, because its proof of personal existence begins with an unjustified assumption. It is posited, before any proof of existence has been made, that logical reasoning exists and is accessible. To whom is it accessible, and how does one know that it is accessible? Even if it is true that a person exists, he may well have extremely flawed reasoning which can be made to draw unjustified conclusions. I know (that is, I have the perception of knowing) a lot of people whom I would not trust to determine the truths of physics, ethics or philosophy. If one has not yet proven one’s own existence, how is it that one (whatever that is) is sufficiently rational to create valid syllogisms? It is equally likely that one has no independent existence and is an aberration of some other consciousness.


Sherlock has gotten 2 cheers on this entry.

 

I want to:
43 Things Login