02-17-2007 20:07

That creedal thing

This certainly sheds more light on your beliefs, but it seems that we are not in total agreement. 
 
On doctrine, what you say seems pretty clear and I have no question about it except to say that I assume you are speaking of general tendencies rather than complete uniformity. As for the doctrine of the teaching of the Light in FGC Friends, my perception is that the uniformity has more to do with the choice of words used than uniformity in conceptual understanding. I cannot really speak about the other groups. Perhaps there is more uniformity there.  
 
As for your examples of dogma and its evolution, I have no reason to doubt the history you present. The question of whether the human structures from which such decisions emerged were truly letting God determine things or not I cannot say. I can say that I can not believe something that does not have the ring of truth to me simply because a group of people presented it as coming from God. I have heard too many religious people speaking for God to just accept something as truth because it is said to be from God. Of course, a person or a body of people whom I respect and whom I feel are seeking truth in honesty will have my attention and will lead me to serious questions about whether I am blind to truth in some way. I perhaps have more comfort with ambiguity than many, but I am not able to bring myself to believe a set of concepts that do not have the ring of truth to me. 
 
As for the evolution of dogma, I suggest that it may still be evolving even in dialogs such as the one we are having. 
 
My initial question, though, was more about the ability of concepts found in dogma, doctrine, philosophy, creeds, and even everyday thought to communicate truth. I gave examples of how even everyday concepts like that of the taste of something cannot capture the "truth" of the actual taste, nor can the concepts communicate the taste to another person. It is even more evident that concepts in the realm of religious thought cannot be contained by language nor can religious experience be communicated by language. At best, the doctines, dogmas, philosophies, and notions we have about things serve as bridges to truth, and who is to say how many different bridges may be available.  
 
Moreover, most of the doctrines and dogmas were written in the world view of another age and do not function the same way now as they did in that age. What is important is the truth that is beyond concepts that we believe the early Christians knew.  
 
It appears to me, though, tat the doctrines of the Church today are just as likely to lead to fantasy as truth. Our doctrines need to continue to evolve, and we must use the conceptual framework of people today to build bridges to the truth we see. 
 
One could argue that it is not possible to distinquish the concepts from the reality as I have done. But currently that is how I perceive reality. The notions are in our minds, like our language is in our minds. They do not exist apart from our thoughts, though they may point to a truth that is not verbal or conceptual. In my way of thinking, using creeds, dogmas, and generally accepted doctrines to classify some concept as heresy may conserve the forms of our tradition, but that does not mean we are preserving the essence. It is my opinion that while at times dogma may have served to keep people from taking bridges to fantasy, it is used more today to stifle our search for the Truth of God that is beyond all concepts and notions in an attempt to validate people and institutions who depend on those forms for their self identity.

IP: 151.213.107.242

Registered