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 haven't taken communion in a long time. The Salvation Army doesn't observe the Sacraments. However, I believe there is Holy Mystery in the Eucharist, and if the early church believed it that's good enough for me.

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.

Love God and love neighbour. God is love. Jesus Christ is our foundation, and he told us to love. Mystery is important, but love is central.

Justification by Faith and Works, real presence in the eucharist, Hell as a purgatory (or at least redemption after death), Jesus as the Word of God (as opposed to the scriptures)... I think those are the big ones for now.

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 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 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

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 anticipate greater holiness and a more personal union with my God. There is unspeakable mystery there, and I need to learn to be satisfied with not knowing everything.

I... am in total agreement. That's what I said. It looks like I left out "I'm sometimes gulity" bit. I'll go back and edit.

I'll check it out, thanks!

Someone once told me "Your 'rightness' infringes upon your imagination." Some people have no respect or desire for mystery (and I'm sometimes guilty of this as well).

A lot of it sounds like they didn't actually understand what they believed, so when they were confronted with alternate worldviews they couldn't defend their traditions. A little more of it sounds like they simply didn't have a good enough "safety net" ie. a community in which they could be supported or a mentor to whom they could express these doubts without discomfort.

I've got the book and am reading it now; I've also been around the War College and talked to the guy in charge there. I'm fascinated by the idea, and being part of the Salvation Army has surrounded me with like-minded people.

What do updots do?

paid to do research

how did you get that job?

Currently, I'm unemployed but studying Religion at University.

I would love to found a monastery in the city and live in that community, leading it into the city to clean things up and actively pursue social justice issues. I would spend my leisure time reading and writing books.

While it may not be the most intimate way of communicating, it's still communication. I'd even argue that it's better, since dinner and a movie isn't an accurate depiction of your entire life. Hanging out, talking, watching TV, etc, all combined, are.

Agreed. I'd go a little farther and say dating must (at some level) include community, because (i) individuals change according to the setting they are in and you want to know all facets of this person, and (ii) you're not taking this person out of his community, you're trying to join it; the same goes for this person's involvement in your community. The "traditional" style of dating (which is what, 150 years old? if that? tradition develops too) is very focused on people on the individual level, where it should strike a balance between individual and community.

. If a woman honestly wants something out a relationship, don't fuck the person, say something.

Shoot, goes both ways I'd say. Don't go under the sheets until you know the person. Sex is more than just pleasure, it's intimacy, and quick flings cheapens it.