Must “spirituality" be "serious"? Surely it’s possible to be very serious about non-spiritual and even heretical topics, and surely it’s also possible to be joyfully or even playfully spiritual. Yet these words are often linked. Why?
Aldous Huxley is an interesting choice of sources to quote in a book about the geography of God, but he paints a vivid picture. Can you see God in Miss Thriplow’s imagined landscape? When you try to empty your mind of everything but God, what do you see?
What do you consider to be the differences between religion and spirituality?
Let’s talk about “Sheilaism.” Christians are often criticized for picking and choosing among the tenets of their faith, but is avoiding that even possible? Or do we all construct our religions out of what we can believe, especially given the truth that we are incapable of comprehending God.
The Reformed faith — generally speaking, the churches that had their beginnings in the Protestant Reformation, although “Reformed” technically reflects a subset of that — have a set of “essential tenets.” We’ve talked before about profession of faith being the only real “qualification” for being considered a Christian, but what must Christians profess their faith in? For example, what if someone believes that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of mankind but can’t believe literally in the virgin birth or the resurrection of the body?
What does it reconciliation between God and humankind mean to you?
Lindvall writes, “Jesus is not so much the founder of Christianity as he is its living, breathing life.” Is it possible to be a Christian if one thinks of Jesus as a teacher but not as God? If so, is Jesus the “Way” to something, and what?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment