So then what do you look forward to?
Mystery should not be seen as an excuse never to question-- in that, I would agree with Tim Minchin. What I dislike about that approach is that the material and empirical try to claim the immaterial and ideal. The material is incredibly important, and I don't wish to deny that; however, the material is not all of reality. The material is simply what can be observed empirically. Different tools must be used for different aspect of reality, and the best tool we have for the immaterial is not empiricism.
I maintain that reality contains the immaterial, not necessarily existence. Existence as a term forces us into a certain understanding of the world, which would not necessarily include Reality. I would agree that there is no such thing as the immaterial in your eyes, as your (and my!) eyes can only perceive the material. However, I have experienced certain.... unquantifiable things that are [currently] best expressed through spiritual terms. Maybe one day we'll discover exactly how the the brain works in its totality. Until then, it is reasonable for me to express my experiences in an immaterial fashion.
I don't deny that everyone should always question. I agree completely with that. But what I'm saying is that I believe that no matter how many questions we answer, there will and should always be a sense of mystery within ourselves to drive us forward.
not mystery, but the love of God that overflows and spills over. In the Tanakh, a prophet (Jeremiah) complains that God's Word burns his fire like bones and that he cannot keep his mouth shut. The mystery of God is to be appreciated, but it is not our sole motivator (although it certainly can be!)
I like the way you speak. While I agree that it shouldn't be the sole motivator, I believe it should be at the heart of all motivation.
I saved this to watch when I can devote more time to it.
I grew up Protestant, in the Salvationist tradition. I'm still heavily influenced by their emphasis on Social Justice, but I find that the core of my doctrine is more easily identifiable with that of the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox. I'm currently with the Salvation Army
Hmm, that's very interesting. Any Eastern Orthodox in specific?
I don't know that I've ever met anyone who believed real presence in the eucharist. So you to it's the real deal and not a metaphor?
Most of Christendom does. I don't know the specifics, but what I do know is that it's holy. Early Church writers held strongly to it, and you can find it in all of the ancient churches today-- never mind that the Eucharist as "symbolic" only arose during the 16th century. That's evidence enough for me.
That's really very interesting. To clarify then, you believe when you take communion that it's actually Christ's flesh and blood? I don't mean to sound rude if I do come off that way. I'm just very interested.
I'm extremely fascinated by this. So you don't believe that the early church had any flawed views? I mean, if you look at the pharisees, they definitely had some misinterpretations about what the Bible meant.
The Pharisees weren't Christian; the Apostles spent time with Jesus (y'know, God). If I can't trust the early church to be right on these matters, I can trust no one. I don't know if the early church was flawed or not, but I have to trust that the Holy Spirit led them.
I commend you and am very impressed by your diligence. Keep it up and I hope you have a very happy life!