posted
Mr. Squick: In regards to Paul transmuting pagan ritual to Christian ones, can you provide a link, or the name of a book?
Because I don't see anything from him in the Bible regarding that sort of policy.
In addition, you'll note that Christ himself organized the first communion. Remember-- 'Do this in remembrance of me?' Now, if you're going to make accusations about the sacrament not being an original Christian product, fine-- but don't point the finger at Paul, 'cause he isn't the one who promulgated the idea first.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dagonee, the thread wasn't about asking advice for training my own kids, but asking what Christian parents do when faced with this problem.
IF you believe homosexuality (for example) is a sin, but you also believe in training your children not to judge others...etc.
I know what I believe about it, but my beliefs are sort of irrelevant to the discussion. I was asking because I thought I knew what the correct response for a CHRISTIAN would be. I obviously was not in the mainstream on my thinking -- hence the concern "how could I be so wrong???"
So, that's what this thread was initially about. It's gone in some other directions since then.
I do find it gratifying in all of this that you couldn't tell right off what I believe about homosexuality. Thanks for that! I was hoping not to bias the discussion or turn it into yet another Hatrack "homosexuality IS/ISN'T a sin" thread. We've got enough of those in the archives already.
posted
Oh, and by the way, in order to answer you, I did have to go back to my original post and figure out what the heck I had said in there. So it's not like my thoughts haven't wandered over the multiple pages of this thread.
The issue is still an important one for me and you are right that it could be broadened to apply to any victimless sin. (I'll leave God out as a "victim" because I just can't believe that God is in anyway "harmed" by the sins of man, so if He's a victim, it's sort of a weird usage of the word.)
My quandry would be over what to teach a child about judging others when I so clearly am willing to pass judgement against judgemental people. Circular in the extreme, no? And a lot less easy to explain in a post on a thread.
But now that we've got 6 pages under our belts, I can ask for myself in the area where I would need the most advice and assume that MOST everyone here would "get it."
So, whaddya think? Is judging the judgemental as much of a sin as judging other sinners?
I think it is.
So, the problem is am I acting in willful disobedience or am I just protecting my kids from an evil I see in the world when I train them to make this judgement?
I gather most of the respondents here would think I'm in the right. Sinning, to be sure, but I wouldn't have a choice if I wanted to raise my children to righteousness -- or at least towards it.
Or is this situation radically different from judging homosexuality as a sin?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note also, I wish that I was smart enough to have PLANNNED this particular transition in the thread. But I'm not. It really did just occur to me now that my own hypocrisy could be instructive in the debate. Before, I just thought it was a failing best left private since no-one could possibly care.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The issue is still an important one for me and you are right that it could be broadened to apply to any victimless sin. (I'll leave God out as a "victim" because I just can't believe that God is in anyway "harmed" by the sins of man, so if He's a victim, it's sort of a weird usage of the word.)
I didn't really read the whole thread and I'm skipping a lot and I don't really know how anyone feels about this. I do think that God is harmed by our sin. We are made in his image, complete with emotions/feelings. I think it hurts him to see us fail so miserably. That's all.
posted
Macc, Sure, that's possible. Speaking as an interested observer, I really don't see it. Like I've said, I don't stand against Christianity. I'd love to see people pushing the fundamentals of Christianity. I just really don't. Can you give me reason to believe that they are?
The thing that maybe isn't coming out here is that I grew up a devout Catholic. I was one of those kids that read the Bible through at least once a year. I think that it is particularly because of this that I am no longer Christian. I took my religion too seriously to excuse what I saw as a betrayal of it everywhere I looked. I didn't have the chauvanism towards my religious community that I think underlies a lot of the problems that religions suffer. When I saw the Catholic Church as doing something wrong, I didn't go all apologist trying to explain it. I didn't lie about it or try to deny it or twist things like I saw some many other people doing. I just thought that they were doing wrong.
I derived the Pelagian heresy from my reason and understanding of the Bible when I was 8. The Church's insistence that anyone not baptized was doomed to hell was the primary reason why I split with it. Nor was this the only heresy I developed more or less by myself that I think grew organically out of my devotion to Christianity.
Later, I came to realize that the truths that I clung to in Christianity were not endemic to it, but rather existed through certain strains of nearly all religions and I embraced a much more catholic attitude than that of the Church I grew up in. Instead of limiting my viewpoint to the revealed content of one religion, I turned to a more general search for underlying truth.
---
I doubt that anyone could claim that historical Christianity lived up to Jesus' teachings. It's way to full of atrocities for that. Actually, rather it way to full of justifying atrocities for that.
Thus, there would have to have been some sort of revolution to bring Christianity back to Christ's message. It certainly wasn't the Reformation. The three main sects coming out of it were the Calvinists, who believed in complete submission to God's will as the only virtue and denied man's capacity for loving each other, the Lutherans, who based being Christian as sort of a self-identification thing, completely divorced from acts and from attitudes towards other people, and the Anglicans, who were pretty much like Catholics with some changes. In America, we've had two renewals. The First Revival is epitomized by Johnathan Edwards, he of the the Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God speech. Love was certainly not tops on their agenda. The second Revival was a turn towrds the extremely personal (and many said ignorant) concept of religion, where the person's own feelings became the center of religious life. This is probably best exemplified in current society by the Southern Baptists, and I doubt anyone's ever going to nominate them for the best example of loving their neighbors.
I ask then, where was this revolution? If you admit that historical Christianity was extremely off message, how has contemporary Christianity gotten on message? Also, why do so many outsiders (or insider-outsiders, like myself) not see this love of neighbor in mainstream Christianity? Why hasn't there been greater progress in ecumenical Christian movements where the recognizition of the shared core outweigh the obviously more peripheral doctrinal differences? Why do scientific studies of such social ills as prejudice and authoritarianism consistently find higher levels amoung Christians than among non-religious people? How could Hitler fight his wars with a population the majority of which was Christian and with the support of the current Pope(if you look at the other thread, you'll see that this isn't just a Godwin)?
edit: With apologies to dkw, about the revolution thing, but how many mainstream Christians know who John Wesley was, let alone read his writings, or follow them?
posted
Everyone in my congregation darn well better. We've spent the entire last year celebrating his 300th birthday.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are some really important soul-searching questions there, Mr. Squicky.
I guess I have a problem though. See, it could be that the truth of the situation is that it is just darned hard to BE a good Christian and that "CHRISTIANITY" the "religion" is not really all that well defined or useful a concept. What ultimately matters is one's own relationship with God, neh?
Rejecting Christianity because of the actions of Christians, if you truly feel like you are or want to be a Christian would be a shame. You would go off and waste a bunch of time and effort trying to find something that feels more right to you. When in fact, maybe Christianity (the religion) needs you just as you need it (the promise).
I guess what I'm saying is that the Christians I most admire don't seem to be wrapped in what other Christians are doing or thinking -- unless it's in a "fellowship" sense. They are on a path. It's Pilgrim's Progress -- a solitary quest with help and advice from those who are living the faith.
Given that, I suppose this whole thread could be considered off base -- "What do Christians do" is not a realistic question.
On the other hand, sometimes it is worthwhile to stop one's individual quest and see whether one is going off in a direction that doesn't make sense. I find myself often to be outside the mainstream of what most Christians seem to believe. Sometimes that's because I'm dead wrong. Other times, I'm convinced it's because I'm dead right.
Most of the time, I come away convinced that we're all wrong and there's very little we can do about it. But pray and hope and keep on the quest.
I have a hard time going to church, mainly because of the other parishioners, or rather my negative reaction to what they think is Christianity. Until I get over my own judgementalism, I don't think I'm very useful at Christian fellowship. And I don't think I'm the right person to go out talking about God to incipient Christians.
I shouldn't even post about my thoughts here for fear of inadvertently leading someone down a path that I'm not even sure of.
But where's the fun in a BB where Bob doesn't post?
So, I keep posting. And I wish I had the certainty that others seem to have. But then I read how uncertain were the people I admire the most and take a hint from that as well. That if they could hold onto the core convictions even when they weren't sure of what they should do next, it's a better thing than just giving up.
By the way, I can't really recommend reading Pilgrim's Progress because it is sort of heavy-handed and stretches a metaphor well past the breaking point. But, in many ways it is also a beautiful story that might stick with you long after you've read it.
(here I am assuming you haven't read it, and maybe you have...)
Oh well, I'm going to bed soon. Tired and I have a trip in the morning at Oh-dark-thirty.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I've already said at least once that I think you're confusing two different kinds of judgement. If I'm wrong, well...I don't think there's any other way to resolve this paradox.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was Kathleen Norris who, when a friend asked how she could stand to go to church on Sunday when so many Christians are such hypocrites, replied “The only hypocrite I need to worry about on Sunday morning is myself.”
I know no perfect Christians. But pretty much every regular church attendee I know wants to be a better Christian than they are, and believes that goal is more likely to be accomplished by working together with other people involved in the same struggle.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know no perfect Christians. But pretty much every regular church attendee I know wants to be a better Christian than they are, and believes that goal is more likely to be accomplished by working together with other people involved in the same struggle.
Yeah, I've heard that before. I even believe it. Sort of. You see, I had this really crummy experience with a church that shall remain nameless. The parishioners who seemed most interested in "fellowship" were also most interested in showing that they knew more about it than everyone else. It was particularly annoying and it wasn't until recently that it finally dawned on me that I was being just a tad judgemental. Unfortunately, I just found myself getting angry and frustrated.
I know a few good people who are also highly intelligent and with whom I feel I can have fellowship, but I have almost no interest in going to their church, where, I just KNOW, I will find a bunch of Republican Texans who want to talk about how God wants GWB to be president again.
I keep away because I can't trust myself not to just get frustrated all over again.
I bet God has actually annoted my entry in the book as "High Maintenance" afterall.
Shoot.
I guess I should try a few more churchs around here and see what's up. It's not right to prejudge.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bob, I've already said at least once that I think you're confusing two different kinds of judgement. If I'm wrong, well...I don't think there's any other way to resolve this paradox.
Sorry Macc. It's probably not you. I probably am confusing two different kinds of judgement. I see one as more important than the other, but I'm also not convinced that I'm right on that score either. I'm more worried that I missed the page in the Bible where this was spelled out.
Or I'm just not wired to understand it.
Not raising children may have something to do with it to. I bet if I were raising children, I would not have to think about this issue. I'd teach them the lessons they were capable of understanding at whatever stage of development they had reached. And I'd worry that there was never enough time or energy or opportunity to cram it all in.
You know, being a shepherd was probably an ideal child-rearing environment, when you think about it. Tons of time together with your kids with nothing much to do but watch sheep graze. You could talk about everything, all the time.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know a few good people who are also highly intelligent and with whom I feel I can have fellowship
Not to be judgemental or anything. . . but maybe this statement sums up your problem with fellowship.
How much of a requisite is it for you that the people with whom you seek fellowship be 'highly intelligent?' What criteria are you using for 'highly intelligent?'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
